Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Horserace Totalisator Board Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

NEW CORPORATE POWERS FOR THE HORSERACE TOTALISATOR BOARD

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'betting' to end of line 12.
If we have to be in the House on a Friday, as our duties occasionally require, I cannot think of many better subjects for debate than the great sport of racing. We can think about what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are hoping to do tomorrow—that is, attend a race meeting—even though we might have preferred to be at one today or on some other Friday, perhaps during the recess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) asked as she came in, "Why are you amending your own Bill?" That is a good question and the explanation is equally succinct: it is that the amendment would, to all intents and purposes, put the Bill back in the same form as it was when it first entered another place. I want to persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government were wrong to insist upon an amendment being made in another place and that reversing it would make a great deal of sense.
There is one slight difference in that, as well as deleting the words,
except bets on the outcome of any lottery forming part of the National Lottery for the purposes of Part I of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993",
the amendment would leave in clause 1 the words, "on any event", which were not included when the Bill was originally introduced in another place by my noble Friend Lord Kimball. I pay tribute to my noble Friend for successfully piloting the Bill through another place, with the support of several other Members of that House who are keen supporters of the racing industry. Many are active and loyal members of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries committee, of which it gives me great pleasure to be chairman.
Despite their not being there originally, it makes sense to keep the words "on any event" in the clause because those three words go to the heart of what we are seeking to do in this measure. The legislation that established the

Horserace Totalisator Board permitted the Tote to accept bets only on sporting events. In March last year, other high street bookmakers began to accept bets on the outcome of the Irish lottery. Over the years, they have also constantly accepted bets on the outcome of other events, of which two come to mind. One, which clearly occupies the thoughts of most hon. Members, is the outcome of the general election, but there is also that famous annual bet on whether there will be snow on the roof of the Meteorological Office in London on Christmas day.
It is ironic that, had the Bill completed all its stages on 13 December—instead of being considered in Committee on Wednesday and proceeding to Report and Third Reading in the House today—we might well have got the Bill on to the statute book before Christmas, which was the first time for many years that there was snow on the roof of the Meteorological Office on Christmas day, and it would have cost the Tote a few shillings had it accepted bets on it. Notwithstanding that little difficulty, it is ridiculous that the Tote should be in the disadvantaged position in its 200 or so betting shops—as opposed to the 9,000 betting shops operated by the main bookmakers, especially the big three, William Hill, Ladbroke and Coral—of not being allowed to receive bets on the outcome of any event, sporting or otherwise.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am sorry that I missed my hon. Friend's first sentence. I congratulate him on his consistently good work as chairman of the Racing and Bloodstock Industries Committee, which is a powerful, important body of which I am glad to be a member. However, bearing in mind the benefits that result from the fact that the takings of the totalisator board pass directly into racing, which is crucial to the survival of that great sport—we had Desert Orchid this week at the Palace to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the British Horse Society, which brings it to mind—would a percentage of takings from other than racing bets go into racing if they were allowed? The answer to that question would be crucial in forming my view. We need that in the racing industry, as my hon. Friend well knows, for the benefit of all punters, jockeys, horses, owners and so on.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is a valued member of the committee and I am grateful for what he said about my chairmanship. I suspect that he knows more about horses than anyone in the House—the horse's friend indeed. We share, not only a love of horses, but a surname—not that we are related, at least in the recent past; we may have been, centuries ago.
My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point of the measure, which is to remedy the loss to the totalisator board's profits that has arisen as a result of its inability to take bets on events other than sporting events. From March to 20 December 1996, the Tote estimates that the profit lost as a result was between £1.5 million and £1.75 million. All that money would have gone directly to racing, and everyone who follows the racing industry knows how important it would have been.
A statutory instrument approved by Parliament on 20 December made it possible for the Tote to take bets on the Irish lottery, as all the other High Street betting shops had been doing. It is important to understand, however, that the loss of bets is not the only problem. Punters—the people who go into betting shops—want to


have a pound or two on the outcome of the Irish lottery or other events, and if they cannot have that bet in a Tote betting shop, surprise surprise, they go elsewhere.
There has been a haemorrhage of regular Tote betting shop punters into other high street betting shops. That is why the figure of £1.5 million to £1.75 million is such a substantial proportion of the Tote's total profit of about £11 million a year. It has been deeply damaging. I was told by totalisator board officials yesterday that, since 20 December, the profit from taking bets on the outcome of the Irish lottery has been about £100,000 every four weeks, and that money goes directly to racing.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend spell out exactly how the profits are used to further racing? Are they spent on management of courses? Are they used to support the widows and orphans of jockeys who have been killed, unfortunately, in accidents? Exactly how is the money spent?

Mr. Greenway: It is slightly outside the scope of the amendment but, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am more than happy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not for me to prejudge whether the hon. Gentleman responds to any intervention. However, I am listening attentively.

Mr. John Greenway: The simple answer is that the money from the Tote supports racing in several ways, especially by redeveloping race courses by creating new stands and facilities, but also by sponsoring races. I shall discuss that subject later during the debate on amendment No. 1 or, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Third Reading.
The Tote is one of two funding bodies under the auspices of the Home Office which support racing. The Tote provides money direct because all its profits go to racing. The Horse Race Betting Levy Board takes money from the bets placed in betting shops other than Tote betting shops. That money amounts to about £56 million a year, and it is also used to develop new race courses but is primarily used to support racing through prize money. There are, however, many racing charities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) rightly mentions, especially charities relating to horses, and those are also supported by both funding bodies. Racing is keen to ensure that the welfare of horses, and the interests of injured jockeys and so on, are strongly supported.
I shall now outline the key point about amendment No. 1. At present the Bill seeks to deny totalisator board betting shops the opportunity to take bets on the outcome of the United Kingdom national lottery. Rightly or wrongly, Ministers, especially those in the Department of National Heritage who have responsibility for the lottery, have convinced themselves that if bets were allowed to be placed on the outcome of the lottery, the lottery's turnover, and therefore the amount of money available for good causes, would be damaged.
The betting industry does not accept that argument. The evidence from Ireland, where bets are permitted on the outcome of the Irish lottery, is that such betting has not undermined the success of the Irish lottery. The people who buy lottery tickets from among the many thousands of high street UK national lottery outlets are not the type of people who usually go into a betting shop. I do not believe that there is any significant evidence that allowing bets on the outcome of the national lottery would seriously damage the lottery.
The lottery provides the opportunity to win several million pounds. This week, the mid-week draw gave £10 million worth of prizes to the person with the six numbers. A person would not get that sort of return from a betting shop, but he might get slightly better odds if he had three or four of the correct numbers. That is why betting on the outcome of the Irish lottery is so attractive.
I am grateful to the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for being present today. I make it clear that my support for the national lottery is unequivocal. It has been a tremendous success, and throughout the country many organisations—especially sporting bodies and charities, as well as the arts—have benefited enormously from it. Had we not had the national lottery, that money would not have been available. The fact that that money has come at a time when money for capital expenditure is tight is all to the good. I am grateful for what the lottery has done and is doing for organisations in Ryedale.
The lottery's impact on book makers and the football pools has been severe. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) is in the Chamber because, as a Liverpool Member of Parliament, she knows how devastating the effect of the lottery has been on football pools' income, as many of us in the House predicted.
We are not here today to talk about football pools, but the turnover in betting shops has been equally adversely affected. When people ask me whether—now that there is a second draw and talk of future draws—I think that the lottery is being a touch greedy, I find it difficult to answer in the negative.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing his opening comments. Both the racing and football industries can apply for lottery funds for various purposes. The fact that the betting industry is structured as it is and the national lottery is protected as it is does not necessarily mean that there is a bias against football or racing.

Mr. Greenway: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I am not sure that he is right. I am not convinced that the Sports Council—which would be the funding body—would be enamoured if commercial organisations were to start knocking on its door for funding for capital projects. But, to pick up on my hon. Friend's point, we need to ensure that the regime is fair and equitable, which is certainly what concerns the high street bookmakers, including Tote bookmakers. They are concerned that the lottery has too great an advantage and that it is time for us to come to terms with the fact that something needs to be done to redress the balance.
I should like to think that if the House accepted the amendment, bets on the outcome of the national lottery could be taken in Tote bookmakers. But even if we accept


the amendment, that will not happen because the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 prohibits bookmakers from taking bets on the outcome of the lottery. That is why the Bill refers to part 1 of the 1993 Act—that legislation already prohibits any bookmaker from taking bets on the outcome of the United Kingdom's national lottery. If that prohibition already exists in primary legislation, which is binding on all bookmaking shops, including Tote bookmaking shops, why does it need to be included in the Bill? That is an important question because sooner or later the Government will make a move.
Sooner or later, the pressure will tell and the Government will accept that betting on the outcome of the UK national lottery should be permitted. When that happens, and if the Bill is approved by the House in the form in which it came from another place, we shall have to amend the totalisator board legislation again so that the Tote is in precisely the same position as other betting shops. We do not need a belt and braces; the braces are already in place through the National Lottery etc. Act. Only if that Act were changed would the Tote be able to take bets on the outcome of the UK national lottery.

Mr. Tim Smith: If the provisions of the amendment, which were inserted in another place on the recommendation of the Government, are unnecessary, what is the answer to my hon. Friend's question? Why was the provision inserted?

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend asks the right question. The provision was inserted owing to the concern of Ministers at the Department of National Heritage that, if the Tote legislation did not make specific reference to the national lottery, it might send a signal that it was all right to have bets on the Tote. I do not accept that argument, but it is the only reason that I can suggest. It must have been known that the Act already prohibits the taking of bets on the outcome of the lottery.

Mr. Tim Smith: If that is so, can my hon. Friend confirm that the legislation enabling bookmakers generally to take bets on any event—legislation that was introduced when the sector was liberalised in the 1960s—has been amended in the same way as the Bill has been amended?

Mr. Greenway: I am sure that that is right. I cannot give my hon. Friend a definitive answer to his question, but I understand that when legislation was introduced allowing the totalisator board to have betting shops, it was not envisaged that there would be a market for bets on events other than horse racing, greyhound racing and possibly football matches. The market has developed substantially.
I do not see why the Bill needs to contain the same provision as already exists elsewhere—unless and until the main lottery legislation is amended, it will not make a difference either way. But if we allow the Bill to stay in the form in which it came to us from another place, whenever the other legislation changes, the Bill will also have to be changed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will address that issue.
Following the prohibition on betting on the outcome of the national lottery, bookmakers—who are not noted for their lack of imagination in devising possibilities for

betting—have introduced their own lucky numbers game. Shortly before Christmas they introduced a game called the 49ers, with 49 numbers. A person can bet on the outcome of the 49ers in betting shops. Legal action is pending which seeks to rule that the 49ers game is illegal and infringes the National Lottery etc. Act. It is not for us to decide, but that game has led to an increase in betting shop turnover of about 3 per cent. Tote bookmakers will be able to take bets on the 49ers game as soon as the legislation receives Royal Assent and comes into effect. Surely it would be better not to have the argument about whether there should be a separate 49ers game in betting shops—and instead allow betting shops to take bets on the outcome of the national lottery. That must be the sensible answer. Better odds can be offered for a few numbers, but the tens of millions of pounds in prize money which the lottery offers will not be available. People will not become multimillionaires. The prizes will be much smaller across the board, but people obviously feel that they would like the chance to get three or four numbers and perhaps a slightly better return, even if they will not have the chance of becoming a multimillionaire. That is a matter for them. As a government, we should be about giving people choice. They are being denied that choice because of a concern which is misplaced.
I believe that one day Parliament will agree that betting on the outcome of the national lottery is the only sensible way forward. If and when that is permitted, Tote bookmakers should be in the same position as all the others. The only way in which we can guarantee that they are in the same position from day one is to accept the amendment. Either way, for the moment bets on the lottery are off. But it will not be like that for ever.

10 am

Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to speak comparatively early in the debate. I must apologise to the House because it seems unlikely that I shall be able to stay until the end of the debate, as I understand that it is expected to continue for at least another hour and I have another appointment.
I am pleased to have a chance to support the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) both in the Bill and in this welcome amendment to it. I suppose that some hon. Members feel that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) has the greatest racing interest in the House. I see the hon. Member for Ryedale shaking his head. Even if some hon. Members think that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has the prime racing interest, with Newbury race course, Lambourn valley—the so-called valley of the race horse—and all the Berkshire downs area in my constituency, I have a fair claim to be among those hon. Members whose constituency racing interests are greatest. I am delighted to inform the House that Newbury races are on this weekend. Any hon. Members who wish to travel down to my constituency are welcome to do so, even if they do not give me prior warning of their arrival.
I am not normally a betting man. I like to bet only on absolute certainties and sadly there are few absolute certainties when one is betting on what happens on the race course. For that reason, one of my most recent bets—I am not sure that it was not the last bet that I have ever


placed—was on the outcome of the Newbury by-election, which was an absolute certainty. I am happy to say that I had a bet at four to one and won quite a lot of money.

Mr. Michael Stephen: What about the next election?

Mr. Rendel: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have every intention of laying an equally certain bet on the outcome of the next election in Newbury. I intend to make a certain amount of money on that, too. Unfortunately, the odds against a Liberal Democrat win there at the next election are much smaller than when I made the previous bet, so I will probably not make quite so much money this time. Never mind.
The Bill allows the Tote a much greater chance to take bets on any event. That is welcome. The hon. Member for Ryedale has made a number of important points, which I will not repeat. He said that it was unfair that if all bets on the lottery were made legal in the future, the Tote and in particular Tote betting shops would be handicapped. It is wrong that we should restrict one particular part of the betting industry. It is right that the Tote betting shops should be given freedom which may well be available elsewhere in the near future. So we should accept the amendment. I welcome the amendment and the Bill on behalf of the Tote and the racing industry, which is so important and provides so much employment, particularly in my constituency.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to refer to the amendment. I use the verb "refer" rather than "support" because, although I have enormous sympathy with the very reasonable arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I make no apology for saying, I hope with characteristic modesty, that I am waiting for my right hon. Friend the Minister to give the official response to the amendment. As often happens with these matters, the likely situation vis a vis the national lottery is not so simple as Conservative Members would like in view of the implications of the expansion of freedom of choice, to which my hon. Friend referred implicitly and explicitly in his remarks.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale for tabling the amendment and making his arguments in an extremely reasonable way, as is characteristic of him. We are used to that. We appreciate his great knowledge of the industry and this important sector. I do not have that knowledge in equal measure so my remarks on the amendment will be brief.
We need further thought on the matter. I was impressed with the original text of the Bill. It is a short Bill. I was extremely impressed by the remarks of Lord Kimball. I suppose that everyone accepts that he is the expert of both Houses of Parliament on all these matters, including rural matters relating to horses, but not necessarily to horse racing and betting. His speech on 6 November last year when the Bill was originally presented in the other place was extremely reasonable. He showed the value of the other place in proposing legislation. We receive it with a considerable amount of pleasure in the lower House as we take it further today.
I welcome this type of legislation, particularly on a Friday. The officials in the Box trying to attract the attention of the Whip and my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me, I hope, when—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the amendment, not matters external to the Chamber.

Mr. Dykes: As a European, I hasten to add—I hope without straying out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that in some other European Parliaments Members can introduce private Member's legislation, which is so valuable in the House. We are all glad that the potential proportion of private Member's legislation has been increased under recent procedural changes.
I am chairman of the Anglo-French parliamentary liaison group. The Assemblée Nationale has a similar system of private Members' legislation. A Government Bill there is called a projet de loi whereas a private Member's Bill is called a proposition de loi. I do not know why I make that point, but perhaps it is interesting to see that private Members in the French Parliament can also deal with matters such as betting. In France, all betting is governed by the Tote whereas in Britain we have the private enterprise system of bookies, which many people prefer. Bookmakers take their own entrepreneurial view, sometimes in a quasi-cartelised way, which they are allowed to do under the law, and sometimes individually. If I remember correctly the modalities of the system, the Tote is based only on the weight of money inputs so it is a mathematical calculation done, I presume, by the Tote computer.
I welcome the expansion in the use of the Tote. It is a congenial way of betting. It is the way in which I mostly place bets. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and I had the pleasure of going to the races briefly last summer, although we had to rush back for business in the House. Apart from that, I attended only the Cheltenham Gold Cup meeting last year, also briefly, on the most important day—I think the Thursday. So it was a lean year for attending the races, which is something that I like to do if time allows. There is no time for such things nowadays, for self-evident reasons.
The Tote is a popular form of betting. Its usage has increased in recent times.
I strongly agree with the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale to the fact that his informal uncle—not his real uncle—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has a deep knowledge of racing and horses. I have the pleasure of reminding the House that he also is an active visitor to the most famous riding school in my constituency, Suzanne's riding school, which is extremely successful and has done a great deal for riding for the disabled and other worthwhile causes. People in riding schools are interested in betting and use the Tote, as do other members of the public.
In respect of the national lottery, I would welcome other changes which have often been aired and are germane to the amendment—the degree to which the national lottery system should be protected or ring-fenced by arrangements such as those proposed in the original text of the Bill, which my hon. Friend's amendment


would remove. Such protection was necessary, and remains necessary to some extent, because the national lottery is still new and we needed to see its effects. It has had a considerable impact, and even those who did not like the concept of a national lottery—many people are against even modest betting and gambling—or its structure in the United Kingdom have often changed their minds as they have seen the enormous sums deployed on worthwhile charitable and social causes throughout the country. In my constituency we have benefited considerably from national lottery money.
However, I remain firmly of the view that a system that combined a smaller total prize potential than the multi-millions that are dispensed regularly, with more reasonable odds than the astronomically large odds that are available, would be better.

Mr. Tim Smith: May I suggest to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not here to discuss the national lottery and the distribution of prizes. The amendment is specific, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to it.

Mr. Dykes: I shall obey your advice immediately. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the way in which the national lottery is protected by arrangements, which is germane to the amendment in one respect, but I shall not pursue that. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) will forgive me if, in response to Mr. Deputy Speaker's suggestion, I do not give way, unless he wishes to persist, with the permission of the Chair.

Mr. Tim Smith: I wanted to ask my hon. Friend about the amendment. That might be in order. I agree that huge sums have been raised for charity by the national lottery and it has been a great success. Of course it is true that the competition to run it was won by Camelot, which has done an excellent job. However, the national lottery is a state-approved monopoly. Now that it is so firmly established, I do not believe that it needs protection. It has tremendous advantages in terms of advertising and is the single event on which no bookmaker or the Tote can take a bet. That cannot be right.

Mr. Dykes: As I overcome my shock at my hon. Friend's insistence that I should refer to the amendment, I have a good deal of sympathy with his argument. That is why I am not yet persuaded what my own conclusion should be. I await guidance from the Minister.
Whatever the protection system of the national lottery—I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point—an arrangement akin to the more modest payouts and odds system of the football pools would be congenial to millions of people when they consider the structure and characteristics of the national lottery.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale will not mind my saying that I still have doubts about his amendment. I would like further guidance on it, as the original text seemed rational and would strengthen the role of the Tote and the board in a way that many citizens would appreciate.

Lady Olga Maitland: I give a warm welcome to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for

Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I served on the Standing Committee that considered the national lottery Bill, and I recall the vivid debate that took place when the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), told the Committee that the success of the national lottery would in no way affect any outside organisations or interests. The debate was on protection for the pools organisations, Littlewoods and Vernons.
When the national lottery came into being, it was a success beyond our wildest dreams. It could not be threatened by any other organisation. On the contrary, its success threatened the survival of the pools promoters. Their take dropped sharply and they had to lay off staff, not in dozens, but in hundreds. Many of those laid off relied on the small sums that they could make from selling tickets.
10.15 am
We must also examine the effect of the national lottery on the Tote. People's betting habits have changed as a result of the lottery. Takings from the Tote have fallen sharply. Its income has gone down by at least £1.5 million—my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale suggested that the figure is more than that. That in turn affects support for other organisations, such as race courses and welfare interests. The pools promoters, through the constitution of their bodies, set up the Sports and Arts Council Foundation and the Football Trust, which have also suffered a drop in funds.
It is in no one's interest for the Tote to suffer loss. It is invidious to suggest that the national lottery is threatened by the Tote. People cannot place a bet on the national lottery, but they can place a bet on the Irish lottery. A Goliath of the scale of the national lottery could be generous and a bit of a sport, and allow other organisations to compete in a fair if more modest way. They should all have a chance.
I hope that the amendment will be seriously considered by my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a reasonable man. If he will not accept it today, I hope that appropriate legislation will be forthcoming in future.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I shall take a few minutes to outline the Opposition's position. It is appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), as we spent many hours together in the Standing Committee that debated the national lottery.
It might cheer the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to know that, after the National Lottery etc. Bill was enacted, I spoke to representatives of the pools workers. Through their representatives in the House, they had presented their case for their business to be allowed to compete on fairer grounds. There was, of course, dismay that those representations were not heeded by the Government, but when I rang them and told them how disappointed we all were, they said, "Never mind, Jane, we are going out to put a bet on the national lottery to see whether we can be the first millionaires and bring the money to Liverpool."
That was the immediate reaction of local people. There is no denying that the lottery is hugely popular and successful, although I must confess to never having bought a ticket myself. When I go to my newsagents, especially on a Saturday, and see my neighbours standing


in queues, I regard it as quite an achievement, and to the Government's credit, that they have found a way of encouraging people to stand in queues at their newsagents to pay their taxes to the Exchequer.
The national lottery introduced scratchcards in an attempt to continue to allocate £15 million per week to good causes, and it has now initiated a midweek draw to sustain its sales. When debating the lottery's potential impact, we considered the fact that sales would tail off as public interest inevitably waned and people realised that they had only a slim chance of winning. That has not yet occurred, although it is too early to predict when—if at all—it will have an effect. I hope that it will not.
In the circumstances, we want to review carefully the case for allowing bookmakers and the Tote to accept bets on the outcome of the national lottery. Any decision to allow it must depend on a demonstration that there would be no significant impact on the £15 million per week that the national lottery allocates to good causes. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will resist his hon. Friends' arguments at present. We do not oppose the amendment in principle: it is a matter of waiting to gauge the impact of the midweek draw. In time, perhaps we will be able to demonstrate that further deregulation and relaxation of the gambling regulations could take place without any detrimental effects on the national lottery.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: This issue is important in my constituency as the Ladbroke Group pic is the largest employer in Harrow, West. Its telephone betting centre in Rayners lane is not a small operation—it looks more like Houston mission control, with a huge bank of monitors and many people taking bets over the telephone. The point of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will not be lost on my constituents who work at that centre and those who work in the betting offices of Ladbroke's and other companies throughout the country.
I believe that the national lottery is run spectacularly well by Camelot. Many people attacked Camelot initially and took a rather rose-tinted view of the other applicants, but Camelot is now returning a maximum amount of money to good causes and its running costs are less than those of some applicants who claimed that they would be doing us a favour. The success of the national lottery has had an inevitable effect on other associated industries. I believe that most people who complain that the lottery is affecting their businesses or charities are not telling the whole truth. I believe that they blame the national lottery simply because it is convenient and they know that their claims will receive press coverage.

Mr. Tim Smith: I am surprised by my hon. Friend's comments. Some £5 billion is bet on the national lottery each year, and that has clearly had some significant macroeconomic effects. For example, there is a large black hole in value added tax receipts, and research suggests that that is partly because consumer spending that would have been VAT-able has switched to the national lottery. Therefore, I think that it has had significant effects on businesses and charities throughout the country.

Mr. Hughes: I agree that the national lottery has had a significant effect on the pattern of retail sales, which has

led to the black hole in VAT receipts that my hon. Friend mentioned. Some charities—particularly those that sell scratchcards—have been seriously affected. I was referring to those who claim to have been affected by the national lottery, but whose pattern of fundraising was clearly very different and did not appeal to people who spend money on the lottery. However, some bodies, such as the betting industry, have clearly been affected. Scratchcards have had a huge impact. The average bet on a horse race is about £2.60.

Mr. John Greenway: Plus tax.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in such matters. People would buy their newspapers or cigarettes and spend the change from a fiver in the nearest betting shop. Such sums constituted a substantial portion of the betting industry's income. People now choose to buy a couple of scratchcards, so the money is going directly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) described as a national monopoly rather than to the private industries that run betting shops. I praise the way in which the big betting organisations, such as Ladbroke's and William Hill, have lobbied for change on a purely factual basis. The levy was altered in the Budget before last in order to ameliorate their losses.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should adopt a real partnership approach to the betting industry and its support for racing? In that regard, do he and his constituents who work at Ladbroke's headquarters in Harrow share my joy at this week's announcement that Ladbroke's has finally done a deal with Tote credit?

Mr. Hughes: Ladbroke's advised me that that was about to happen, and it is very good news for my constituents and for the many people who work in betting shops throughout the country.

Mr. Greenway: And racing.

Mr. Hughes: It is also good news for the racing industry. I have described to the House why the national lottery has substantially affected trade patterns and reduced the amount of trade in betting shops. As hon. Members have said, the industry has applied to be allowed to take bets on the lottery lucky numbers. That practice has not had any adverse effects on the success of lotteries in other countries, and such bets can be made on the lucky numbers in the Irish lottery.
I think that the time has come to have enough confidence in the national lottery and its continued success to allow private bookmakers to take such bets and begin to rebuild their businesses. That would be fair and reasonable, and it should not affect the success of the national lottery. The only factor that is liable to affect its success is the Labour party's wild talk about changing the contract completely and increasing Government control over the way in which the money is used for good causes. As the national lottery is such a great success, we should allow those bets to be made.
I understand why the words that my hon. Friend's amendment seeks to remove are in the Bill. We all know that, in a usual Session—let alone a short Session such as this—private Member's Bills are very delicate flowers.


Unless they enjoy the support of all hon. Members—but notably of the Government and the official Opposition—they do not stand a chance of being passed. I understand why the Government said, in line with the policy that they have so far adopted, that they could not allow an extension to allow betting on the national lottery to take place when my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale decided to insert the clause, but I urge them to think again. I ask them to think about those who work in the betting industry throughout the country and to think about the solidity of the national lottery. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and the Bill so that we might bring some justice to an injured betting industry.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I (shall speak against the amendment, but I hasten to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that I strongly support the Bill as originally drafted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that he felt that the law would be clear because of the implications of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, and that removing part of the clause would not immediately allow the Tote to accept bets on the outcome of the lottery. I believe that there would still be an ambiguity in the law. If the Bill were enacted, it would appear to allow betting on any event, whereas the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 appears to prevent it. For the purposes of clarity, surely it would be best to leave the relevant part of the clause in being.
My hon. Friend was honest with the House in that he argued that betting should be allowed on the outcome of the national lottery. He was perhaps keenest to advance that general argument, which has been taken up by other contributors to the debate. It is a valid argument, but I feel that this is the wrong moment to embark on it. This is a complex subject and, given the passions that were aroused during our deliberations on the National Lottery etc, Bill, perhaps we should consider it in more detail and debate it more thoroughly. I believe that that debate should be based on more detailed research and evidence. I would say that it is valid for us to trot round the course this morning. We might even say, "Lay your bets now." This is not the moment, however, to start the race. That should be left for a future occasion.
If the amendment allowed bets to be placed on the outcome of the national lottery in the Tote, we would immediately have the ludicrous and contradictory situation of such betting being allowed on the Tote but prohibited in betting shops.

Mr. John Greenway: No. I understand my hon. Friend's confusion. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 prohibits all betting on the outcome of the national lottery, whether in Tote betting shops or in other high street betting shops.

Mr. Merchant: I am aware of that. With respect to my hon. Friend, perhaps he was not listening to my argument earlier. I said that what he has outlined was probably the case, but that I thought that there might be an ambiguity if the Bill becomes law, the amendment having been agreed to. The interpretation might be that the Tote could accept betting on the outcome of the national lottery. If that interpretation was made by the courts, we would have

the ludicrous situation of national lottery outcome betting being allowed in the Tote, but not in betting shops. That would be unacceptable.
I am saying that if the House wished to alter the present implications of the National Lottery etc. Act on betting on the outcome of the national lottery, that should be done across the board and not only for the Tote. Betting shops should be included as well. We should consider briefly whether it would be a good thing for the Tote to be allowed to bet on the outcome of the national lottery, even though I think that we should put off a final decision until a later date.
There is a danger that the national lottery might be damaged. We need to assure ourselves beyond all doubt that that would not be the outcome. It has been said that the national lottery has been an unparalleled success, and more successful than expected. That success is demonstrated by the fact that money put on the national lottery has to an extent come from money that would have been used for betting. Indeed, the betting industry's turnover has fallen if the national lottery is excluded. If it is included, the industry's turnover has increased. In other words, there has been a substitution. That is strong evidence that the national lottery has been a success. It is also evidence that when we change what is permitted in betting there is a slightly unpredictable change in the amount of money deposited in the different sections of betting. On that basis, we cannot be certain that if betting is allowed on the national lottery outcome there will not be a similar change, with a haemorrhage of funds flowing away from the national lottery towards betting on the outcome of the lottery. There could be some damage to the lottery, which needs to be researched and, wherever possible, quantified.

Mr. Tim Smith: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is saying that, if there is any damage at all, that settles the matter. It is entirely understandable that, initially, the Government wanted to provide a protected environment for the national lottery. Camelot made assessments of the likely turnover, which have been wildly exceeded. The money that is going to good causes is much greater than forecast. Surely in those circumstances the national lottery could have the confidence to be able to take on a bit of competition.

Mr. Merchant: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I am not saying that we must be certain that there will be no damage to the lottery; I am saying that we need to consider, on the basis of the best research available, what is likely to happen. We must ensure that any predictable damage is fairly limited. It is the degree of damage that is important. I am sure my hon. Friend accepts that, if the damage could prove fatal, we would have to consider carefully any argument for changing the law. We must consider carefully the impact of any change and achieve the right balance. That is precisely the purpose of current legislation. Before we introduce change, it is incumbent on us to be certain that there will not be unacceptable damage.
There is a second and important argument that needs to be taken into account when we consider whether at some future stage the Tote should allow betting on the outcome of the national lottery. The purpose of the national lottery is different from the purpose of other sorts of betting. Its objective is entirely altruistic. The national lottery does


not aim to make profits for itself, for its own purpose, or for its owners; it aims to generate moneys to be spent on good causes. That is one of the reasons why the lottery is so popular.
Betting on the outcome of the national lottery is a different matter, because that betting would presumably be run for profit, or in the case of the Tote there would be a specific objective. There is perhaps a moral argument, but certainly there is different motivation. That is an important point to bear in mind.

Mr. Dykes: I am seeking information. I am not enough of a mathematician to be sure about the matter, but presumably the danger is that the odds offered by the bookmakers, and by the Tote, would be more generous than that which would be the equivalent gain from the national lottery system.

Mr. Merchant: I, too, am not an expert mathematician. My immediate instinct, however, is that my hon. Friend is correct. The result must be that many people who are now attracted by the national lottery might instead be attracted by something similar to it and linked to it which offered them a greater chance of gain. That would substitute money that currently goes on the national lottery for money that goes on pure betting but does not produce the beneficial outcome—proceeds for good causes.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: One does not need to be a great mathematician to understand that the odds in the national lottery are fixed, regardless of the number of people who participate, so the risk-return ratio changes as the prize gets bigger. That is unlike, for example, Tote betting, where the odds are adjusted according to the number of people betting on particular outcomes. The betting would swing towards benefiting either the national lottery or the Tote, depending on how big the rollover—the main prize—was. It is a complicated assessment to make, but I imagine that many people would be interested in working out all the parameters.

Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend is clearly a great mathematician—a true Pythagoras. I am grateful to him for such a clear explanation and complex calculation. It reinforces my point—there is potential danger to the national lottery if we allow betting on its outcome.
I simply suggest that this is not the moment to enshrine in law a significant change in the way in which we view the national lottery. The issue will no doubt be debated at length on some future occasion and, in the fulness of time, it might be right for the House to change the law. I would not necessarily oppose it for all time, but this is not the right time to make the change. For that reason, in principle, I oppose the amendment.
My final concern about the amendment relates to the nature of the Tote. Because the Tote channels money into one sport—racing—we must bear it in mind that, to an extent, money spent on the Tote goes to that one final cause. It is a good objective and I would not criticise it in any sense, but so far the Tote has operated to allow the profits from betting on sporting events to go into a specific sport. That seems to be a sensible balance, but

the Bill would change that to allow the proceeds from betting on any event to go into one sport—racing. That is a limited and reasonable change to the Tote, but to go a step further and allow such a wide change that betting could take place on the outcome of the national lottery and then to allow the proceeds from that to go into one good cause—racing—strikes me as a change of a different order.
I merely question whether it is healthy for the Tote to develop so widely. Perhaps it could be argued to the contrary but the matter must be looked at carefully and I urge a note of caution. The matter must be examined more closely than the Bill seems originally to have intended.
This is a good Bill, and I support it. The amendment, however, widens it too much, which is why I oppose it. The issue it addresses may be worthy of discussion in the future, but not now; we should stick to the original Bill.

Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on piloting the Bill through the House. I also congratulate my noble Friend Lord Kimball on introducing the Bill in another place initially. It is an excellent Bill, which supports an excellent organisation: the Tote.
On the issue of whether the national lottery should be the only future event on which bookmakers and the Tote cannot take bets, I have corresponded at length with the Department of National Heritage on behalf of one of my constituents, the business development director of William Hill, Mr. Ian Spearing. William Hill has an interest in the matter, but I think that it is right on this issue: the time has come to make a change.
I understand that, initially, it was right that the national lottery should be protected because we wanted it to be a success. It has been a huge and overwhelming success, and has far exceeded expectations. The Government should now show their confidence in the national lottery's ability to compete with other forms of gambling.
I wrote to the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), on 20 June last year and he replied on 22 July and said:
The Government has no plans to introduce legislation to legalise betting on the outcome of the National Lottery.
The first reason that he gave was that
The last Lottery to be held in this country was abandoned mainly because the focus had switched from people playing the official Lottery to betting on the outcome.
I was interested to learn that. Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remember the last national lottery in this country? It took place in 1826 and it is on that event that the Department of National Heritage chooses to base its first argument.
Being an assiduous man, my constituent did a little research of his own. He said:
What the Heritage Department does not state is how the last lottery was conducted. According to 'An Economic and Social History of Gambling in Britain and the USA' in running the Lottery, the Treasury sold a given number of tickets to brokers who then bid above par for blocks. The brokers thus, in effect, underwrote the Lottery. In turn, brokers sold shares in the tickets at prices which exceeded the face value by a substantial margin and provided them with income and profit. Thus it was the Government itself that


created the environment for a secondary market. In fact, I would suggest the main reason the Lottery was stopped was because the 'poor' started playing via the brokers.
I put that argument to the Department of National Heritage to see whether it could confirm it, and my hon. Friend wrote back on 30 August, saying:
I am aware that there are significant differences between the current National Lottery and the last state lottery held in this country in 1826, particularly with regard to the cost of tickets. I am also aware that opinions vary about the exact causes of the abolition of lotteries in the nineteenth century.
We are now approaching the end of the 20th century and we have a very different creature in the national lottery today. A good deal of thought was given, quite rightly, to how it should be established and it has been established in such a way that it has proved an enormous success. We therefore need bother no further with the history of this matter.
The second reason that my hon. Friend gave—this is the real point—was that
The purpose of the National Lottery is to raise as much money as possible for the arts, sports, the heritage, charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. If money were to be diverted away from buying Lottery tickets to betting on the outcome, the amount raised for these good causes would decline and the Lottery would fail to achieve its central purpose
That is at the heart of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made exactly that point. He is naturally concerned that the national lottery would be damaged if such a change were made. However, we are talking about two different markets. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) described the people who queue up on Saturday afternoons to buy lottery tickets not as gamblers but as "taxpayers". That was a rather good description. We know that they are not gamblers but the national lottery appeals to them. It would be nice to think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) suggested, they were all buying tickets in order to contribute to charity. It would be nice to think that that was their primary motive. I am sure that they welcome the fact that a large proportion of the proceeds goes to charity, but what really attracts them is the absurd idea that, at huge odds, there is the possibility of winning such a vast sum of money that, when people do have the misfortune to win, very few of them have any idea what to do with it.
People go in on a Saturday afternoon and the queues build up towards 7 o'clock, which I believe is the deadline. Then they all rush home and watch the result on the telly. Of course the majority of them lose. Anyone who knows anything about gambling does not go anywhere near the national lottery because the odds are so diabolical, but it is wonderful, inoffensive entertainment and I make no criticism of it because it has been a huge success.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I correct my hon. Friend on one point? Once the pot gets beyond a certain size, the odds start becoming very attractive. Syndicates will buy a vast number of tickets on the basis that the odds suddenly become attractive once the pot becomes over £16 million or £17 million in a roll-over week.

Mr. Smith: I have investigated that matter. I think that it is necessary to buy about 5 million tickets to cover

every possibility and one would have to have a big syndicate of people all rushing around the shops to buy them up, but, when there is a rollover, there is a possibility that a person could corner the market. However, he would have to hope that he was the only person who won and that he had the whole lot, so it is a risky business.
I recognise, however, the validity of what my hon. Friend says. The difficulty is that, when a person bets, he has no idea how many other people will be betting. At least the bookies give him some odds and he knows that those are the odds at which he places his bet. I personally feel that, if people want to bet, that is better. I rarely bet, but I enjoy going to the races, which are rather dull if I do not have a bet.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend has spent most of his speech referring to people who bet on the national lottery as "they". I hope that he will continue his speech with the term "we". As he is an occasional lottery better like myself, we should collectively embrace these people rather than referring to "them over there" and the constituents of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy).

Mr. Smith: Of course I have bought lottery tickets from time to time. I even bought one of those scratchcards, but I was so upset when I did not win that I have not bought one since. I have found the same with the weekly lottery. I gave much thought to what the numbers might be and bought one ticket. When not one of them came up, I was so deeply upset about the gross waste of money that I did not do it again for a few weeks.
I must admit that I have participated in the national lottery—of course I have. It is an entirely harmless activity. The people who participate in it are part of a different market from, I would not use the term professional gamblers, but people who take an interest in the science of gambling and who like to think that they are applying a little expertise when they place a bet, like hon. Members, some of whom no doubt will place bets on certain aspects of the general election outcome.
For example, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) is not here now because there is an interesting bet available on the number of Liberal Democrat Members there will be in the next House. There is an interesting misconception about that. The bookies think that the Liberal Democrats will start from their present number, which I believe is 26, but of course—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that that comes directly under the amendment. I am waiting for elucidation on it.

Mr. Smith: One large group of people bets on the national lottery and another group takes betting a little more seriously and is better informed. Not many people bet on election outcomes—bets are mostly on horse racing, dog racing and that sort of thing—but people can bet on other activities. For example, it is interesting that there is quite a lot of betting on golf now, but may I finish my point about the Liberal Democrats because this information might be of interest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The bookies think that, because the Liberal Democrats have 26 Members now, that is the starting point, but we all know that they are going to lose all the


seats that they won in by-elections, so the starting point is lower. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can get a good bet. I would strongly recommend that. Working out how many Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament mere are going to be is much easier than working out the number of Members there will be of almost any other party in the House.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I just wonder whether my hon. Friend is giving this good advice to Mr. Deputy Speaker, having insulted him earlier by suggesting that he was at least 150 years old.

Mr. Smith: I certainly would never suggest that. I am deeply distressed that my hon. Friend should have placed that interpretation on my words because I think that I am right in saying that no one in the House can remember the events of 1826 and probably not many can remember the events of 1926, but may I revert to the point that I was making about the two different markets that are involved because it is important? There would be quite a lot of betting on the outcome of the lottery and bookmakers, being inventive, creative people, would create quite a lot of interesting bets that people cannot get at the moment.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at present, people win £5 if they get three numbers, they win a slightly larger sum if they get four and they can win a significant sum if they get five or more. When we think of what the possibilities are when six numbers come up, obviously, there is an interesting market there, but all I am saying is that we have reached the point where the national lottery has been such a huge success that it should have the confidence in its own ability to compete successfully in the market. As a Conservative, I am not entirely comfortable with what is essentially a state-protected monopoly. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for—

Mr. John Greenway: Beaconsfield.

Mr. Jenkin: I knew it was another constituency beginning with "B", a few of which have come up this morning.
I make no apology for pointing out, particularly to my hon. Friends, that we Conservatives have not created another natural business in the national lottery. We are not dealing with a privatised utility whose monopoly status can gradually be eroded such as that of British Gas or British Telecom, which are natural places for business. We are dealing with the national lottery, which is simply an emanation of the state.
I know that all our instincts suggest that, once something is thriving, it should be opened up to competition and the industry would continue to develop, but, by setting up a national lottery, we have done something of which probably Adam Smith and most certainly my noble Friend Lady Thatcher would be ashamed. We have created something that can be the product only of a monopoly.
If it were fully open to competition, the national lottery would cease to be a national lottery. It would lose its profile and effectiveness and the whole thing would degenerate into a scrum among perhaps a large number of much smaller operations, some of which would not be set up on the present basis of the national lottery, so they would not give anything to good causes.
We have to accept that we Conservatives have done rather an unfree market thing in setting up the national lottery. I do not apologise for that because I am not an economic liberal or a laissez-faire nightwatchman state-type Conservative. I am a Tory and the powers of the state are to be used for the benefit of the people, so I do not feel particularly precious about that. My great friends from the Adam Smith Institute will perhaps write to me to correct what may be a misinterpretation of Adam Smith's view on this.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend accept that the activities of the national lottery are for the benefit of people, in that huge sums of money generated each week are applied in large measure to good causes? Does he further accept that although the national lottery is a state-run monopoly, it is in competition with other forms of betting such as horse racing and the football pools?

11 am

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I particularly agree with his comment about good causes. Huge sums of money have gone to good causes in my constituency, such as the Mercury theatre in Colchester and the local night shelter, as well as to charities, the arts and sports. My constituency has done rather well out of the national lottery, and I must confess that I am embarrassed by how well it has done compared with other constituencies. I hope that that will continue.
That success would not have been possible but for the fact that the national lottery is a monopoly, as it can only thrive as a monopoly. We ought not to be talking about deregulating its market—or opening it up to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) called "competition"—because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) commented, there is already a lot of competition. We ought to be talking about enhancing and protecting its monopoly position, because that is how the national lottery will best continue to do the job that we have set it—namely, to raise money for good causes and to pay a bit of tax, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) pointed out.
My instinct is to be against the amendment. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is not in his place at the moment because I wanted to say to him that if this were a French legislative chamber, we would be leaving the French judges in a great muddle. The judges would look at the travail preparatoire and would wonder why we were debating this amendment at all, as its real purpose is simply belt and braces. Its purpose is to clarify for the avoidance of doubt—as the legal expression goes—that the Bill in no way alters or amends the effects of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which prohibits anyone or any organisation, be it private or state, from organising bets on the national lottery. We should leave the Bill as it is, as removing that part of the subsection may raise questions about the 1993 Act.
I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making a comment which is relevant to the amendment and to the Bill as a whole. I doubt whether we should regard as "liberalisation" the opening up of competition with a totally nationalised form of betting. We should not give the Tote too much freedom, as it is a nationalised industry competing with the private sector. We must put the Tote into the private sector to compete on a level playing field with other organisations before we start to open up these liberalising arguments.

Mr. Tim Smith: Would not the disadvantage of such an arrangement—which, on the face of it, is attractive—be that horse racing would suffer considerably?

Mr. Jenkin: That is like saying that we should not have had a private sector operator for the national lottery because a private sector operator would be out to make profits for itself instead of raising money for good causes. However, we all know that Camelot was the best bet because it promised to raise the most money for good causes. I do not see why we could not create a semi-protected position for a privatised Tote with arrangements to divert money into the racing industry. That does not alter the fact that removing this part of the clause holds out the prospect that there will be moves to liberalise the national lottery, which would be detrimental to the lottery. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will make clear that the Government do not support the amendment.
I wish to add one more point. If it is planned at some time in the future to liberalise the national lottery to allow people to bet on it, it would be necessary also to amend this Bill. The only advantage of removing this part of the clause—if liberalisation of the national lottery were to take place—is that the Bill would have to be amended. I would like some clarification from my right hon. Friend on that point.

Mr. Stephen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on piloting this useful Bill through the House. I support the amendment, and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) about the effect of the lottery upon the horse race betting industry. I was also interested to hear that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has placed a bet on the outcome of the election in his constituency. He did not tell the House whether he was betting that he would win his seat or lose it. I suspect probably the latter.
As a Conservative, my starting point must be freedom of choice for people to spend their hard-earned money as they wish. If they wish to have a little flutter, they should be allowed to do so on the Tote, the lottery or at the racecourse. I would be against the amendment if I thought that the activities of the Tote were not in the national interest, but those activities are very much in the national interest. The Tote puts a huge amount of money into racing, as indeed the football pools have put money into the sport of football and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has generated huge amounts for good causes—money that has benefited my constituents.
Racing used to be very much in the national interest because, for centuries, we needed horses for war. We needed horses with stamina, strength and speed to perform in the arduous conditions of the battlefield. I was a

member of one of the last British regiments to be equipped with horses, so I have studied this matter in some detail. I am glad to say that we do not need horses for that purpose any more. The Household Cavalry does, however, make a tremendous contribution to tourism in this country, and adds glitter, colour and pageantry to our national life without which we would all be the poorer.
Horses are now bred for sport, and horse racing gives enormous pleasure to many hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people. Riding for the disabled is also an enormous source of pleasure, not only for disabled people but for those who help them. It engenders a love of animals, and those who care for horses are among the best animal lovers in the country. A constituent told me not long ago that her husband spent too much money on sick animals. "The only problem," she said, "was that he did not know they were sick until they came past the winning post at the end of the field."
The Tote competes with bookmakers and the national lottery. Bookmakers are perhaps the most colourful element at our racecourses, which would not be the same without them and their oddly named assistants, the tic-tac men, whose skill beggars belief. Bookmakers had a reputation in the past for being crooked, and it had been known for bookmakers to abscond before the end of a race. However, bookmaking is now an honest and properly run industry which benefits the public and the racing world.
I wish that the money raised by bookmakers, the Tote and the national lottery could pay for all the public expenditure that the House must authorise. I would much prefer it if income tax could be abolished and that everything could be paid for out of voluntary contributions, rather than having money extracted from our constituents by the Inland Revenue; I fear, however, that that is a long time in the future.
Our people have a long history of betting on just about anything, and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so, unless the bet is contrary to public policy. I could not contemplate that, for example, someone might bet on a person being murdered, and then go to the bookmaker to collect a large sum of money after having committed that murder. That would clearly be contrary to public policy. In the past, people bet on the outcome of cockfights. I would not approve of that, because that too would be contrary to public policy.
Some people bet on the result of elections. Such betting is not contrary to public policy, although it is not usually very profitable. Not long ago, however, I heard that, in a local election, a candidate—he was a sandwich-board man by profession—who had very little chance of winning put on his sandwich board a message to the electorate that they might do themselves a bit of good if they went along to the bookmakers and put a large sum of money on him to win the election. Many electors did just that, and he was elected.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: That is a very important point. My constituent, Screaming Lord Sutch, has bet on himself and on the number of votes that he might receive in the many by-elections he has stood in, and, in most cases, that is how he has paid his election expenses. It is a very good tradition.

Mr. Stephen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
I do not think that betting on the national lottery result can in any sense be said to be contrary to public policy. Having listened very carefully to the speeches earlier in this debate, I still hold that view and I therefore support the amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We have had an interesting and knowledgable debate. I do not know the sources of my colleagues' information on betting, the national lottery and the Tote, but they are clearly better informed on those matters than I was until I received my briefings on the subject.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) attempts to reverse an amendment made in another place. The words that he wants to remove are a necessary part of the Bill, and we cannot support the Bill without them. They establish that the new freedom of the Tote to take bets on non-sporting events does not extend to the national lottery. As drafted, the Bill ensures that the Tote is placed in the same position as other bookmakers in relation to the national lottery, and that is clearly right.
Under the law, bookmakers are prohibited from taking such bets. Parliament banned side betting during passage of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 because it was thought that betting on the lottery might reduce the flow of funds to good causes. It was considered that side bets on the national lottery could damage the lottery itself, with players switching from buying lottery tickets to taking bets on its outcome, thus reducing the amount of money going to the national lottery, and hence to good causes. The ban is enforced by the provision, which has been placed in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, that bookmakers stand to lose their bookmaker's permit, without which they could not trade, if they took bets on the national lottery. The Government continue to support that ban.
11.15 am
With all due respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is slightly misinformed on the effect that his amendment would have if passed. The amendment made in another place ensures that the Tote may not take bets on the national lottery. As I have said, that puts it on the same footing as other bookmakers prohibited from taking bets under the 1993 Act. However, the section of the 1993 Act that stops the Tote's betting subsidiaries, Tote bookmakers and Tote Direct, taking side bets on the national lottery would not stop the Tote board itself doing so. Therefore, the amendment made in the other place simply closes a legal loophole.
If the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale were passed—although I cannot accept it—it would recreate a legal loophole, in which Tote bookmakers and Tote Direct could not take bets on the lottery, whereas the Tote board could. We know that the Tote board would not exploit such a loophole, as Lord Wyatt, chairman of the Tote board, has given us that assurance. However, I think that it is preferable, as we are considering an Act, to close that loophole, to make statute law clear and not to have to rely on Lord Wyatt's assurance, although of course we entirely believe him.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I have heard that argument before.

The Tote board would need premises from which to take such bets and, as the Tote bookmakers would be the only source of such premises, they would therefore be debarred. I heard what my hon. Friend said, but there is also another side to the argument.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. However—although we are considering hypothetical situations—if, for example, the Tote board decided that it wished to exploit the loophole, I am sure that it would be possible to devise certain franchising arrangements in which the Tote board would technically and legally be taking the bets, but in which it was renting out the buildings, facilities and machines belonging to Tote bookmakers. That could be done, and I suspect that it would be totally legal to do so. So there could be ways around the problem. However, I do not suggest that anyone will try to find ways round it. I am absolutely certain that the board does not wish to do that. It has given an assurance, and it is an honourable organisation. Nevertheless—as we are considering a Bill, and for the avoidance of any doubt—we think that it makes sense to plug that loophole.
I am of course aware that bookmakers have mounted a vigorous campaign to remove the general restriction not only on the Tote's but on bookies' ability to bet on the national lottery. They have tried to demonstrate that the concern of the Department for National Heritage is not justified. I must report, however, that the Government are not currently persuaded that that risk to good causes is one which they should take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) commented that the Government—perhaps not today, but soon—might be persuaded to change their mind. After listening to the very powerful arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), I cannot help but feel that that day may be sooner rather than later. Fortunately, I am served by excellent staff in the Home Office, and whatever arguments I have been given to mount today against those of my hon. Friends, none of them relies on the 1826 national lottery as a main defence of allowing the grave new sin of betting on the national lottery.
The Department of National Heritage is responsible for the national lottery, and it has not been persuaded by the figures provided by bookmakers on the experience in Ireland. If the sales of national lottery tickets were reduced by no more than 8 per cent., the amount the lottery raises for good causes could be reduced by at least £120 million a year.
Bookmakers have called for a degree of equity in the market place, maintaining that the lottery amounts to unfair competition. However, there is a clear distinction between an enterprise such as the lottery, which is run under licence by Camelot for public benefit, and licensed betting shops which operate for private gain. They both pay taxes, but the betting shops make pure private gain, whereas the bulk of money raised by Camelot goes to pay taxes and to support the five generic good causes.
Comments have been made about the midweek national lottery draw affecting business. The director general, as the regulator of the lottery, agreed to the introduction of the midweek draw to maintain the level of lottery turnover and to allow Camelot to achieve its projected contribution to good causes. As the midweek draw started only on Wednesday of this week, it is too early to come to any conclusion on its effects.
It is dangerous to speculate and I do not wish to hold out hope to either side in the dispute about whether people should be able to bet on the national lottery. I am not an expert on the subject, but, as an occasional buyer of lottery tickets, I do not expect the midweek draw to make nearly as much money as the Saturday draw. However, if it is a success and maintains funding, the balance of arguments will change slightly in favour of what the bookmakers have requested. In those circumstances, it would not be right for the lottery to have it all ways—to have Saturday betting and a midweek draw, keeping the funds high and not allowing betting on the outcome of the lottery. It is impossible to come to any conclusion yet. We must wait to see how the midweek draw works.
We have introduced several measures recently to assist the betting industry.

Mr. John Greenway: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister is about to talk about issues on which the betting industry and the Tote are grateful for the support given by the Home Office. Does he agree that, if the House decides not accept the amendment and leaves the Bill unamended, it would be sensible to ensure that any future legislative changes to the rules to allow betting on the outcome of the national lottery deal with this matter simultaneously, to avoid the Tote being disadvantaged?

Mr. Maclean: My personal view is that I sincerely hope so. If the time comes when it is regarded as sensible to allow betting on the outcome of the national lottery, I shall argue strongly to my ministerial colleagues that the Tote should be in the same position as betting shops. I would not want it to be given a monopoly, but I would want it to be in the same position.

Mr. Rendel: It seems to me that the Minister has made two contradictory statements. He has made it clear that he regards the matter as purely technical, without any real effect, because he accepts that the Tote board will not make use of the loophole that he thinks exists even if it is allowed to remain. He has also said that he will reverse the relevant part of the legislation if others are allowed to take bets on the lottery. However, I think that I also heard him say that if the amendment were passed today, the Government would not want the Bill to pass. Will he confirm that? If the matter is purely technical, he could let the Bill through even with the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: I do not think that there is any contradiction in what I have said. I have pointed out that this is not simply a technical matter—it closes a loophole There is a loophole in the legislation. We have every confidence that the Tote board, as an honourable organisation, will stick to its undertaking, but it is right to pass legislation that we think is as perfect as possible. We know that there is a loophole, so it would be foolish to let the Bill through without plugging it.
The situation may change. I cannot speculate on when that may happen—it could be in 12 years or two years The Government may not change their mind on betting on the national lottery. A different Tote board may lose patience with the Government's view and exploit the loophole. It would be foolish to get into that position.
The issue is not merely a technical matter of no importance. It is important that legislation should carry out the Government's intention. It is the Government's

intention that there should be no betting on the outcome of the national lottery by high street bookmakers, Tote Direct, Tote bookmakers or the Tote board. I have set out the general arguments why the Department of National Heritage does not want betting on the outcome of the national lottery for the moment. I shall conclude in a minute by outlining the steps that the Home Office has taken.
It is right to give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). He, perhaps more than any previous Home Office Minister, has immersed himself in all aspects of the betting and gaming industry and brought forward proposals for sensible deregulation. He has tackled the issue with courage and vigour. His initiative has resulted in a number of measures to make betting shops more attractive to customers. The blacked-out windows are due to be removed, if that has not already happened. All-cash amusement with prizes machines were introduced last June.
The indications are that those measures have been profitable for the betting industry. The Government have not been dog in the manger, saying, "You cannot bet on the national lottery, but we are not going to let you improve your attractiveness to customers in other ways." We have tried to deregulate the gambling and betting industry where sensible to make life easier for it and better for the people who use the shops, giving them better chances.
In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his bit to help, reducing general betting duty from 7.75 per cent. to 6.75 per cent. in March last year. The industry will also have greater freedom to advertise if the order currently under scrutiny receives parliamentary approval. All that amounts to a significant package of measures to help the industry.
Those measures are making a difference. We are pleased to note—we have heard it mentioned this morning—that there is sufficient confidence in the industry for Ladbroke to have made a major acquisition recently, installing Tote Direct terminals in its shops. The expansion of terminals will give racing and bookmakers the impetus to develop a super-bet to challenge the supremacy of the lottery.
The Tote Direct scheme has been successfully extended. The company is owned by the Tote and Coral. Its terminals in betting shops feed bets straight into Tote pools. Lord Wyatt was understandably jubilant when announcing the coup at a press conference on Tuesday this week.
That change could have major implications for the financing and marketing of racing. The number of Tote Direct terminals in Britain's betting shops is set to leap from 2,400 to more than 4,300, making possible the search for a super-bet to rival the national lottery.

Mr. Tim Smith: I am interested that my right hon. Friend has twice talked about challenging and rivalling the national lottery. I think that he agrees with me that it is reasonable that there should be fair competition and he does not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for


Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who says that the national lottery is a paternalistic institution that needs to be protected for all time.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made a telling and powerful speech. He is now tempting me to agree with some of his eloquent phrases. Many have professed their conservatism this morning and then made arguments that might get them drummed out of the brownies and certain other clubs around Westminster. Some of my hon. Friends will have to make amends for the views that they have expressed about state-run monopolies as paternalistic organisations.
I accept that Britain's strength and greatness is based in many ways on some of our great institutions, for which we want no competition from any quarter—the monarchy, Parliament, this House and the other great institutions that make Britain a place worth living in. I am not certain whether the national lottery has yet moved into that league of institutions that make Britain the place that it is. I do not regard the national lottery as entirely paternalistic. It is successful and it does the job that Parliament set it up to do. The House set it up in its current form and if it wishes it can amend it or the competition to it.
It is important that the Tote Direct system that has been set up will allow through terminals the opportunity for super-bets. That will greatly increase the pool of money, and that in itself could make it a worthwhile rival to the lottery. It is hoped that the money going into the Tote through Tote Direct will rise to £100 million and be added to the race course pool of £74 million a year. Tote jackpots will be greatly boosted by that move.
11.30 am
The Government cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that in my extensive reply to the debate I have shown the House that the Government's mind is not completely closed to the possibility that one day, when matters have settled and we have considered the midweek lottery figures and other issues for a little longer, it may be possible to allow betting on the outcome of the national lottery. However, for the moment that would be premature. The Government have not adopted a dog-in-the-manger attitude to the betting industry. We are doing all that we can to allow it to compete successfully without the additional carrot of the national lottery.

Mr. John Greenway: This has been a worthwhile two-hour debate and in many respects it has shown the House at its best. That is easily said, but hon. Members have been open minded and those who have spoken are interested in racing and in the national lottery. The House has given the issue, which as the Minister said will return in future, a thoroughly good airing.
The Minister's comments were encouraging and we understand why the Government are not able to support the feature of the Bill to which my amendment relates. Perhaps we in the racing world and in bookmaking should not wait and see but should continue to negotiate in the hope that in future the Government will decide in our favour.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Mr. John Greenway: Despite my disappointment at having to withdraw my amendment on Report, I am pleased that this is a landmark Bill for the Horserace Totalisator Board. This is undoubtedly a day of great rejoicing because in a few minutes the House may give the Bill its Third Reading and we can look forward to Royal Assent.
It is impossible to overestimate the value of the Tote to racing. We heard much about that on Report. It has a turnover of about £300 million on which it makes a profit of about £11 million, all of which goes to racing. That is equal to about one fifth of the amount from the horse race betting levy on the much bigger betting turnover of several million pounds placed with high street bookmakers.
Many people in racing have argued that the Tote should have a monopoly on betting. That is not an issue for today, but if it does not have a monopoly it should have the ability to compete on equal terms with high street bookmakers and, increasingly, to work with those bookmakers in marketing the super bet. That must be the right approach. Increasingly, people want to place bets on non-sporting events. The Tote is currently restricted, but the Bill liberalises its activities and gives it the freedom that Conservative Governments should be about. Our philosophy is to give people freedom, choice and opportunity and the Bill does precisely that. It is a worthwhile deregulation measure and I greatly welcome Government and Opposition support in addressing the issue.
It is important to allow betting not just on all events, including non-sporting events, and for Tote bookmakers to be on an equal footing but to reverse the loss of trade that is suffered by other betting shops and which the current disadvantage has brought about. It is crucial to put that right and the Bill does that.
As I have said, it is difficult to overestimate the value of the Tote to racing. It does a formidable job and its support is cherished by all those in racing. I shall give the House a brief idea of the value of that support.

Mr. Tim Smith: How will the Bill work because I understand that at the moment bets on the Tote create a pool from which prize money is paid, leaving a balance. Therefore, it is impossible for the Tote to lose money. Will that be possible under the new arrangements? Will all bets be similarly pooled?

Mr. Greenway: I understand that they will all be pooled. That is what makes the odds so interesting and gives the punter the certainty of a sporting chance. That is the nature of pool betting and it is that which is makes it so valuable.
In racing, pool betting often throws up quite different odds from those offered by a bookmaker. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are looking forward to a visit to a racecourse. One can bet on the Tote and get quite different


odds from those offered by bookmakers. Contrary to what the big three bookmakers often say, the Tote is not always one way. I was once asked by a punter for a tip. Apart from the obvious one of, "Do not bet what you cannot afford", my tip was to examine the race course odds, leave the bet as late as possible and inspect the place odds on the Tote.
The Tote can often offer extremely good value, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) discovered when we visited Newbury race course on an all-party racing committee day out. I shall explain why the Tote gives good value to racing. I said earlier that we have probably lost £1.5 million to £1.75 million in profit over the past 10 to 11 months because this measure has not been on the statute book. On Second Reading in another place the chairman of the Tote, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, to whom I pay tribute for his stewardship of the Tote and whose chairmanship will come to an end in a few weeks, said that the sponsorship value would have been 50 races with prize money of £30,000 or 30 races with prize money of £50,000. That goes to the heart of what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) asked me on Report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) spoke on Report about the Cheltenham Gold cup. It is one of the most prestigious steeplechases of the year and it is sponsored by the Tote. It is Tote sponsorship that makes Cheltenham festival what it is. At York, the Ebor Trophy race is held on the three days of what are known as the York Ebor meeting. That is held in late August and it is arguably the best flat racing festival in the world. Without the sponsorship of the Tote, it would be a less successful event. As a result of this measure, we can look forward to the Tote being able to improve and increase its sponsorship throughout the world of racing.
I should like, with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer to Jodami, a horse from Ryedale, which won the Cheltenham Gold cup three or four seasons ago and which, sadly, sustained an injury when it narrowly failed to win the Gold cup in Ireland on Sunday. It has now had to retire. We are all very sad about that in north Yorkshire—not only have we now lost Jodami to racing but I lose Peter Beaumont's yard in Brandsby to another constituency after the election. However, there are plenty more racing stables in need of substantial financial support in what will remain of Ryedale.
We cannot underestimate the value of the Tote to racing. However, its input cannot be sustained without continual improvement of the Tote's arrangements. What is the future for racing? Interestingly, only this week the British Horse Racing Board published a new discussion paper entitled "Racing Industry Review: Options for Change" in which it outlines the future of the racing industry. The review highlights the importance of the Tote and the levy in the racing industry's financial arrangements.
The review makes the point—it is important to put this on record—that the Government have a clear financial interest in the success of racing as they take some £400 million a year in general betting duty out of the tax paid on bets in betting shops. Only £56 million comes back in the levy, and we shall have to redress that balance at some point.
To maintain the turnover in racing, whether in the Tote bookmakers that we are debating or in the high-street bookmakers, racing must be competitive The quality of

racing is in the competitiveness in the sense that racing does not always have to involve horses of groups 1 or 2 calibre, or steeplechasers with ratings in excess of 130; it means having horses of equal form and ability, and some of the most exciting racing takes place with horses in the lower groupings which may have ratings of under 100. That competitiveness stimulates and encourages people to bet on racing. The only way in which the racing industry will remain competitive at all levels is if we ensure that the sport is properly financed. The contribution to racing from the Tote and bookmaking generally is crucial in this regard.
What is the future for the Tote, bookmakers generally and betting on all kinds of events, not only horse and greyhound races? I believe that new technology and deregulation will have to go hand in hand. The announcement this week that Ladbroke is joining in the Tote's direct operation is all about making the best use of new technology to have access to the multi-bets and the multi-pool bet to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred.
Parliament must continue to have an open mind. It must also take a keen interest in ensuring that the regulatory framework is right, not just to ensure that the Tote and bookmakers have the opportunities they need to run their business but so that all betting is properly conducted and that the punters are treated fairly. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield raised an important matter when he spoke of the value of pool betting, its security and efficacy.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend explain how the pool works? How can the concept of a pool be consistent with the idea that one can walk into a bookmakers and place a bet at fixed odds? I do not quite understand how that works.

Mr. Greenway: We are getting into very technical matters and, in spite of comments about my expertise, I am not entirely sure that I can give my hon. Friend an answer or that it would be entirely germane to the Bill. As the Minister would no doubt say, I shall arrange for ford Wyatt to write to my hon. Friend and explain it to him. The point is that people wish to make all kinds of bets at fixed and variable odds and that they can securely be accommodated within all the betting systems.
Finally, I hope that no one listening to the debate will think that we are simply in the business of stimulating gambling without any concern for the possible effects on individuals. We are in the business of ensuring fairness for Tote bookmakers and ensuring that the racing industry has a flourishing future. That is certainly my motivation in asking the House to grant the Bill a Third Reading.
Equally, we are in the business of ensuring that the disgraceful abuse that took place in 1826 and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred never recurs. That is why the interest of my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Home Department in the levy board and the Tote is vital and so greatly appreciated. I am utterly confident that there is no reason why such abuse should recur, but Parliament must continue to take a close interest in betting matters. The Bill will do much to redress the disadvantage under which the Tote has laboured for too long and will, I hope, put matters right within a few days.

Mr. Tim Smith: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in paying tribute to Lord Wyatt of Weeford, the chairman of the Tote, who is due to retire on 30 April. He has been an absolutely splendid chairman. When I was the parliamentary private secretary to the Home Secretary of the day, I had the good fortune to be invited to a splendid occasion called the annual Tote lunch, which takes place at a very nice hotel in Kensington. Lord Wyatt always made a most amusing speech on such occasions, although it was largely at the expense of the other guests. It is quite right that the Tote should celebrate its achievements because it has been enormously successful.

Mr. Maclean: The annual Tote lunch is not an event with which I am familiar. Does my hon. Friend happen to know when the next one might be?

Mr. John Greenway: On 5 March.

Mr. Smith: I was not aware of the date because, unfortunately, I have not been invited this year—perhaps if certain people read Hansard, they might be able to remedy that omission. It is a splendid occasion and it is right that the Tote should celebrate its success.
In betting, we might like to start from a different starting point, but the fact is that bookmakers exist and do an excellent job. The Tote is an important part of the overall picture of betting in racing, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, and it makes a unique contribution to racing. I was greatly encouraged by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister about Tote Direct, which is good news because it will expand the business of the Tote considerably and will allow the Tote to provide more prize money for races and more sponsorship for racing. That must be welcome.
The Tote operates not only at horse races, but at dog races. I am not very experienced in betting—I asked my hon. Friend whether fixed-rate betting was consistent with a pool because I do not fully understand those matters.

Mr. Greenway: The Tote betting at greyhound tracks is different to the Horserace Totalisator Board Tote. Most greyhound tracks run their own pool for betting on greyhounds on their track on the day of the races.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful for that clarification—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This Bill is entirely about the Horserace Totalisator Board and Third Reading speeches should be confined to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I think you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is about horse racing, but I wonder whether it is not too late to extend it to dog racing. What I am about to say would be applicable and relevant to horse racing.
I mentioned earlier the rather attractive bet that one could obtain on the number of Liberal Democrat Members in the next Parliament—we all know that there will be substantial reduction. Dog racing is interesting because there is a fixed number of dogs in a race—normally six—and the Tote operates like all Totes in that it gives the

running odds, which are determined by the amount of money that is going on each dog. It is the same in horse racing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This Bill is about horses, not dogs.

Mr. Smith: I am very disappointed at your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it means that I shall be unable to give you some very helpful advice about how you should bet the next time you attend dog racing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, let me say that I am going to Newbury races tomorrow and they are for horses only.

Mr. Smith: I am delighted to hear that. Newbury race course is one of the most attractive race courses in the country—I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) agrees that it is an excellent course. I hope you have a fantastic day out, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I hope that you place all your bets with the Tote; and I hope that you have great success and come in on Monday morning with a big smile on your face. The Tote is convenient at race courses; it will be near the directors' box in which you have lunch, so you will not have to go very far to place your bet; and it provides an excellent service, with all sorts of combinations of bets.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale for bringing forward the Bill because, since the advent of betting on the Irish lottery in betting shops, the Tote has been placed at a serious disadvantage. I understand that it would have been possible for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to have dealt with the matter through regulation rather more speedily than has been possible through primary legislation. Nevertheless, the Bill is welcome because it places the Tote on an par—to use the hackneyed phrase, on a level playing field—with betting shops. I am pleased that it has all-party support.

Lady Olga Maitland: I formally congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on introducing this excellent and important Bill.
I have to make a confession: I am not one of the world's greatest punters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) recalled, we have had some pleasurable excursions out to Ascot in great family gatherings, although they were perhaps done more for social reasons than for the purpose of betting. Nevertheless, the piquancy of going to Ascot was making my little visit to the Tote, with my £1 coin—or, if I were being daring, my £2—and asking, "Could I place a bet—oh, how do I place a bet?" and they would say, "Well, you can have it each way or for a place," and I would say, "Any way will do, provided I get something back." At the end of a day's racing at Ascot—or at Fakenham, which is enjoyable but rather more on par with a donkey derby—my great joy is to find that I have put £5 out and got £6 back. My fury was aroused when I assisted my son, who was then only 12, with his betting—although he could not place bets, I was able to abide by his wishes. That little wretch would come back with a fortune—he had an instinct for betting which I was unable to match.
Let me return to the Bill. A natural characteristic of the British is in favour of fair play and we would not be having fair play had the Bill not come into being. It is absolutely iniquitous that, all these years, the Tote—which is an utterly respectable statutory body, headed by the biggest grandees in the land—has been unable, for some extraordinary reason, to operate on a level playing field with the other bookmakers. That was unworthy treatment. It is common sense that the Tote should be allowed to operate in a host of betting ventures other than dogs and horses—incidentally, I am not at all interested in dogs.
I would be interested in placing a bet with the Tote, which is easier than going to some of the other bookmakers, on the general election result. It would be reassuring to know that I could go to the Tote and bet on my own success in Sutton and Cheam—not only on the certainty of winning, but on the size of the margin by which I would win. When the Bill is passed, I shall be able to do that.
The Tote's success will be good news not only for the racing industry, but for the causes that the racing industry supports. I congratulate my hon. Friend and wish his Bill well.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I start by adding my congratulations to those who brought the measure forward. My noble Friend Lord Kimball, who introduced the Bill in another place, is well known in the House for his interest in these matters and for the enormous amount that he has done over the years as a Member—first, of the House of Commons and now of the House of Lords—in advancing the interests of the horse racing industry and other country pursuits.
There is some danger in adding the name of Lord Wyatt of Weeford, because any congratulations to him will now look like an application for an invitation to the Tote lunch in March. However, if that were the way that the Tote wanted to read my congratulations to Lord Wyatt, I should not be displeased. He has played a tremendous role in the Tote's success. It has been able to do formidable things for racing, and he deserves unreserved congratulations on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), the Member in charge of the Bill, did well in bringing the Bill forward and getting it through all its stages in this Parliament. I confidently predict that it will receive a Third Reading. It can then soon become law.
I have been staggered at the expertise that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has shown in carrying the Bill through its remaining stages today. He obviously has great expertise, and the many people who work in that industry in his constituency and throughout the country can feel well pleased with the way in which they were represented by him today.
We should pay tribute to the work of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries committee, whose members considered this measure and expressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister their support for the Bill. Evidently, the committee had great influence in persuading the Government that it was time that they supported the Bill to ensure its passage. My hon. Friend

the Member for Ryedale is chairman of that committee, so he played a leading part from the start in ensuring the Bill's introduction.
On Third Reading, we may not voice our regrets about what is not in the Bill, and naturally I would not do so. It would have been helpful if the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale had been passed, but we may rest assured that it is safe to allow the Bill as it stands to proceed, largely because of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister on Report. His views were clear from what he said within the limits of selective responsibility, but he stretched those at one or two points, which was very helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), myself and others who have argued that the Bill should go further in the direction of accommodating betting on the outcome of the national lottery. That was a satisfactory outcome, and I am sure that the Bill, when it becomes law, will soon be followed by a Bill that will enable the Tote and the betting shops to do the things that we talked about on Report.
Many supporters of racing agree with the Tote when it says that it must compete with bookmakers on an equal basis. We have heard that the Tote cannot take fixed-odds bets on non-sporting events. That appears curious, but it dates back to the Horserace and Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Act 1972. That may not be as long ago as the 1826 lottery, but it is a long time ago. What was done in 1972 was obviously appropriate for the conditions in 1972, but things have moved on and now, in 1997, the Tote should, as far as possible, be in the same position as the bookmakers. If Ladbroke's disagrees with me, I shall know about it pretty soon, but I doubt that the bookmakers would argue with that.
Interestingly, until 1996, the Tote never applied much pressure to be allowed to take bets on non-sporting events, and the fact that it feels able to take them on is a sign of the success that Lord Wyatt has had with the Tote.
The Bill is welcome. It will do a great deal to enhance the Tote. We have heard today that more is possible provided that those of us who want freedom to bet on the outcome of the national lottery continue our campaign. We have also heard that the Bill does not apply to dogs, and that there will be no dog racing at Newbury. We have heard about all sorts of things on Report and on Third Reading. The measure is most worth while and I look forward to it passing quickly on to the statute book once it has received its Third Reading and Royal Assent.

Mr. Dykes: It gives me great pleasure to follow others who have spoken and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on his excellent Third Reading presentation. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I am glad that his amendment was not agreed and that the Bill reached its Third Reading without amendment: the original text is much stronger. I think that even my hon. Friend would be fair enough to see the force of that argument despite his great skill in advancing arguments in favour of the amendment.
The Bill is important. I hope that the fact that two hon. Members who represent the borough of Harrow are speaking in the debate will not give the impression that there is an excessive interest in horse racing or betting in that borough—it is just a coincidence. The historic link is that Ladbroke's headquarters was originally in my


constituency of Harrow, East, albeit in an unattractive, modern, concrete building. It has now moved to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and is in a much nicer building. I regret the move, but I understand the technological, operational and managerial reasons for it. I wish the company well and remain friends with it, but at a slightly greater distance. I even tried to have a bet on which building it would occupy in Harrow, West, but it was not possible to place a bet with an appropriate local bookmaker, certainly not on the Tote.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of a second connection, which plays an instructive role in ensuring that racing is maintained as an important industry in this country. Until the second world war, there was an important race track at Northolt park on the borders of my constituency and Ealing—part of the site is in my constituency. We do not want more race tracks to be abandoned; we want racing in this country to thrive.

Mr. Dykes: That moving, almost emotional, intervention from my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to agree with him. It also gives me the chance to refer—without pomposity—to the fact that I am chairman of the Anglo-French parliamentary liaison group. The industry in France is much bigger than ours and more money is invested in it for breeding and training. I welcome any move to expand an industry that is congenial, attractive to millions of citizens and an important provider of jobs.
I have a predilection for trotting, and I regret that there are no trotting race courses in this country—I believe that that is true, at least in England. That is a great omission: trotting holds a certain monotonous fascination; it is popular in the United States and France, but not in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maclean: There may not be an official trotting race course, but my hon. Friend is welcome to come to my constituency—to Appleby and Westmorland—each spring for the Appleby trotting and harness races. I might even invite him to make a speech on his views on matters pertaining to Britain, Europe and the world.

Mr. Dykes: I am extremely moved by that kind suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. It would be an even more agreeable combined double if the process of amity and connection could be completed by the extension to both of us of an invitation to the next Tote board lunch.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. Bookmakers have a dubious reputation in some people's eyes, but not mine. The bookmakers I know are decent members of the community.
I do not want to sound too nauseating, but I shall use the appropriate epithets and say that today's debate has been characterised by the contributions of jovial John. If the informal, colloquial uncle of jovial John, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), had remained here, he would presumably have been hearty Harry. Diligent David, the Minister of State, gave an effective reply on behalf of the Government.
On a personal note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for her kind references to our occasional visits to the races. Somewhat nervously, in case we should give the wrong impression, I hasten to add that those visits are rare. Those visits, with our crowd of mutual friends, have been all too few and far between owing to the pressures of parliamentary life, and they have not happened for some considerable time.
My hon. Friend need not be discouraged by the mistakes that amateur punters and occasional visitors to race courses make when they try to place bets. On a recent official visit to Hong Kong I attended the wonderful Happy Valley race course, where attendance rates and betting money from the local Chinese population are so stupendous that each meeting—particularly the Wednesday evening meeting, which is particularly well attended—adds several percentage points to Hong Kong's gross domestic product. It contributes through the tax levied to some worthwhile local public and social causes. That reminds me of an occasion when I attended Happy Valley with a skilled business friend from the Hong Kong community. He was an enthusiastic and expert punter. We tried to emulate the locals. We stood alongside the queue of Chinese punters going to place bets and listened carefully to the words—in Cantonese, of course, not Mandarin—that they used to place the bets. We were astonished to find that each one said an identical phrase in Cantonese.
We, rather pompously and self-importantly, decided to take the risk of going up to the window and saying the same thing to place the appropriate bet. The amount of money given seemed to be equal each time, which was rather fascinating. When we went up and said what we thought were the same words in Cantonese, the glass window was slammed down as if we had said the wrong thing. We clearly got the Chinese tones wrong. Anyone can make mistakes when they make bets as an amateur.
I conclude by referring to the notable work done by Lord Wyatt, who will soon finish his job as chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board. I wish him well. I share the general enthusiasm for the work that he has done with his colleagues, the way in which the board has been developed and the way in which it will be helped by the Bill. That does not mean that I would go so far as to share his eccentric and bizarre views on domestic politics or the future of Europe. My enthusiasm in congratulating him on his work is tempered by a fear that, as he will have less to do with the board and racing in general, he might spend more mischievous time on running down Europe and expressing his archaic 1850 views on its future.

Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend ought not to be too harsh on Lord Wyatt. I understand that he has accurately predicted the results of the past two general elections and has placed substantial bets, with great success, on the basis of his predictions. Of course, he could not do so on the Tote until now. It remains to be seen whether he will take that opportunity after the Bill is passed.

Mr. Dykes: That intervention emphasises my point that Lord Wyatt is a great expert on betting. I hope that his correct prognosis will be repeated, but some of his views on the future of Europe and, indeed, on the danger of mixing with foreigners too frequently are well known.
Lord Wyatt, and all of us who have spoken in the debate today have paid tribute to Lord Kimball, the promoter of the Bill in the other place. In the debate in the Lords he summed up the crux of the Bill, saying that the Bill
will allow the Tote to take bets on non-sporting events. The Tote's betting offices have been hit by the introduction since March of this year by all the bookmakers in their shops of betting on the Irish Lottery numbers. This now amounts to as much as 2.5 per cent. of all their off-course turnover. The fact that the Tote has not been allowed to take these bets has meant that since March of this year it is estimated that the Tote has been deprived of over £1 million and that, in a full year, it would be deprived of in excess of £1.5 million."—
as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said.
This is money that has been lost to racing. After all, all the profits of the Tote go to racing.
Then, with even more emphasis, if that is possible, he said:
The Tote has some 200 betting offices out of approximately 9,000 off-course betting shops in this country. The problem is that, if a punter goes into a betting shop and cannot get the bet that he wants—and in this case it is the popular amusement of betting on the numbers that are coming out in the Irish draw—he goes into another betting shop where he can get the bet that he wants."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 1996; Vol.575. c. 710.]
That is the rationale behind the Bill.
I am glad that the Bill has proceeded so felicitously through all its stages in both Houses. I assume that the House will be minded today to grant it a Third Reading That would give me much pleasure, as I am sure it would my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, with all his skills and knowledge of the industry, and all the other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today.

Mrs. Kennedy: My upbringing discouraged at an early age any interest that I may have had in horse racing or the gambling associated with it. However, to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), I regard the horses bred for racing as incomparably beautiful animals, and I recognise that we would not have the one without the other.
I am here to present the Opposition's view on the Bill We recognise the Bill's worth and the fact that it clearly assists the Tote in the increasingly tough competition that it faces by relaxing restrictions on the range of events on which it can receive bets. The Tote, with the rest of the gambling industry, has suffered since the introduction of the national lottery.
We discussed earlier the fact that the lottery and scratchcards have increased the number of people involved in gambling. One of the most important consequences is that gambling is less often portrayed as an immoral minority activity, but strictly applied regulation is still necessary. The businesses involved in the gambling industry, including the Tote, accept that it is in their best interests for their integrity to be protected by proper regulation.
Reputable business practice and appropriate regulation have contributed to an irreversible change in the landscape of gambling in the United Kingdom. Betting on horses and dogs, bingo, football pools and in casinos has become an integral part of the entertainment industry. I was pleased to visit the Mecca bingo club in Knotty

Ash in my constituency—there is a real place called Knotty Ash, and I invite hon. Members to come and visit it. There is an extremely successful bingo club in Knotty Ash, which claims 35,000 members who regularly take part in the events organised there.
One of the consequences of the national lottery is that it has forced the industry to recognise the competition and to invest in improving facilities to attract people into bingo clubs. That is one example that has been given; the Minister referred to improvements in high street betting shops.
For the most part, those who make use of such forms of entertainment are exercising their own choice and do not gamble stakes beyond their means. It is therefore not our intention to seek to limit that choice. Our aim is to ensure that the firms involved operate legally and with propriety, and that any social implications are recognised and taken into account separately.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Lady referred to the bingo industry. She may be interested to know that one of the most attractive bingo clubs is in the middle of my constituency. It is run by the well-known chain, Gala Clubs. It is a superb facility, where many people come regularly, and not only at weekends. Modest sums of money change hands, but it is a huge sector that provides great enjoyment to a large number of people. Understandably, however, the bingo industry sometimes feels like the poor relation because it does not receive the attention that politicians should give it. Does the hon. Lady agree, and are there ways in which we could better promote the excellent bingo industry?

Mrs. Kennedy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I shall not go too far down that route, as it strays somewhat from the purposes of the Bill. Various points were put to me by the managers of the bingo club. In the debate on the Bill in Committee, there was some comment about the need for a wider examination of the regulations that affect gambling in the United Kingdom, rather than the current piecemeal approach. Perhaps we could return to that on another occasion.
We support the Bill as drafted, and congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on the progress that he has made so far with an excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for introducing the Bill and for his excellent advocacy of it. I am also grateful to all my hon. Friends who have spoken in support of it, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) for her contributions today. I believe that she also served on the Standing Committee.
The hon. Lady is an excellent advocate at the Dispatch Box; she has made a fluent contribution to the debate and done so with such decency. I am glad that the Opposition and the Government are in agreement. If the time comes that I must disagree with her over the Dispatch Box, I shall feel a right swine and a cad, because she presents her arguments with extreme decency. If the hon. Lady is an example of new Labour, I am glad that there are plenty of old Labour Members behind her whom we can treat as bogeymen.
I am pleased to place on record the Government's support for the Bill. It removes an unnecessary restriction on the Tote, and places it on the same footing as other bookmakers. It will help the Tote to compete on an equal basis with other bookies in the fixed odds market. In this day and age, it is clearly unnecessary to prevent the Tote from taking bets on non-sporting events—in fact, I was surprised to learn that the Tote was restricted in that way.
What could be the reason for limiting the Tote's powers in that way? I understand that it dates back to the Horserace and Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Act 1972—not quite 1826 legislation. That Act allowed the Tote to enter the fixed odds market for the first time. When the Tote was first set up in 1928, there were no off-course betting shops and the Tote provided pool betting on race courses. When the major step was taken to legalise off-course betting shops in 1961, the Tote faced formidable competition. It was not until 1972 that it was given the powers it needed to take fixed odds bets.
It was intended that the Tote should, as far as possible, be in the same position as a bookmaker. Therefore, it was given unfettered powers to take fixed odds bets on sporting events. However, as we have heard this morning, the Tote's powers to offer such bets on non-sporting events were restricted. At that time, it was thought undesirable for a statutory body to take bets on matters such as a general election and the royal family. The Home Secretary's approval was therefore required in the case of non-sporting events. Today, most people expect the Tote to decide what bets it should offer and take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) is absolutely correct: fairness is one of the key features of the British character. Fairness regarding the treatment of the Tote and other bookmakers was examined by the Home Affairs Committee in its 1991 report. It noted that the Home Secretary could, by order, approve non-sporting events on which the Tote could take bets, but that no order had been made. Primary legislation was needed to extend the Tote's powers so that bets could be accepted on any event, otherwise individual events had to be specified.
As hon. Members may imagine, drawing up such orders could be difficult. In its evidence, the Home Office commented that it did not contemplate making an order to allow bets on matters such as snow on Christmas day or martians landing. The Tote argued that it was anachronistic that it was unable to take bets on non-sporting events, that such bets gave publicity opportunities to other bookmakers, and that, if a punter wanted to place bets on a horse and an election result, he would patronise another bookmaker for both bets rather than place the bet for the horse with the Tote and then go next door to place the other bet.
The associations representing punters favoured allowing Tote bookmakers to take bets on non-sporting events. The bookmakers—then and now—agree with the proposition, so long as there is no bias in the legislation in favour of the Tote. The Home Affairs Committee commented that there was no logical reason why Tote bookmakers should be hamstrung in that way. Although bets on non-sporting events then accounted for less than 1 per cent. of turnover, they were profitable for bookmakers, and it was said that customers expected to

be able to find a full range of bookmaking services in a bookmaker's shop. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), then the Minister responsible for the Tote, expressed the view that there was good argument for amending the legislation.
Why has it taken so long for a Bill to come before the House? In 1972, the restriction was not seen as irksome. The demand for bets on events other than sporting events was minimal, and the Tote did not press hard for the extension in its powers until last year. Circumstances have changed because of the new area of business that the bookmakers have ingeniously created: betting on the Irish lottery numbers, or what is called Lucky Choice, and more recently the new numbers game in betting shops called 49s.
I, too, pay tribute to Lord Wyatt for his excellent chairmanship of the Horserace Totalisator Board over the years, and to board members. He has been an excellent source of advice for the Government. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), I hope that, in the free time that Lord Wyatt will have available from April, he will feel free to write on whatever subject takes his fancy.
I wish to thank all those who have advised me on the Bill, including my civil servants. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has been in the forefront in trying to make changes in betting legislation.
It is only fair to say that some of the best unofficial briefing that I have received has been over the past few days in the back of the ministerial car. If we are looking for a successor chairman of the Tote, I can do no better than recommend Allen Loveridge, my Government car driver. I suspect that that applies also to other members of his syndicate. He was able to explain to me how 49s worked. None of us this morning wanted to get into technical explanations of how odds are run. I suggest that, if the Home Affairs Committee ever wants advice on those matters, it should look no further than the Government car pool drivers, who seem to be a unique source of expertise on all matters relating to betting. I now know what 49s are—and they are worth having a go on, actually.
The bookmakers saw that, in Ireland, betting on Irish lottery numbers was extremely popular. Bookmakers here are prevented by law from betting on the United Kingdom lottery. Lucky Choice—betting on the Irish lottery—turned out to be a success and the bookies found it to be a lucrative slice of their business. They can make more from that type of bet than from the traditional horse race bet because they do not have to pay levy on it. Money goes to the levy board for the support of racing only from horse race bets.
Last year, the Tote was hit very hard in its betting shops. If its customers wanted to play Lucky Choice, they could not do so in a Tote betting shop. They had to go elsewhere. The Tote was losing potential income and it was losing customers, possibly not to return.
I shall make it clear why the Government attach great importance to income to the Tote, which is a unique body. It is run as a commercial operation, but its profits are applied for the benefit of horse racing, not private gain. Any income lost to the Tote is income lost to horse racing and horse breeding, one of Britain's most important industries.
The House may be interested to know about the Tote's contributions to racing. I have been reading the Tote's annual report for 1996. To the year ending 31 March 1996, turnover was over £304 million, an increase of almost 12 per cent. on the previous year. It paid out £238 million to winning customers and paid betting duty of over £13 million. Its gross profit was £45 million. Net profit before contributions to racing was £10 million. Its total contribution to racing was £8.3 million, an increase of 12.5 per cent.
How did racing benefit from these moneys? It appears that £1.58 million was paid in levy to the levy board while £0.86 million was directed to the sponsorship of races. Payments of slightly more than £5 million went direct to race courses, while £0.66 million went to the Greyhound Racing Trust. The capital contribution was a further £0.76 million.
The Tote has a particularly important role in sponsorship. The Tote's contract to support the Tote Cheltenham gold cup until the turn of the century is extremely important. In 1986, its contribution to prize money was £118,000. The Tote's bookmaking division is Tote Bookmakers, which has about 200 shops throughout the country.
The Tote has taken full advantage of the deregulatory measures the Government have introduced. In April 1995, restrictions on betting office facilities were relaxed to allow clear windows, larger television screens, notices on windows with information about facilities and odds on offer, and a wider range of refreshments.
I particularly welcome the change to shop windows and the removal of blacked-out glass, as it suggested that betting shops were immoral or seedy and it made them seem the equivalent of sex shops. That was an anachronism, and I am glad that we have been able to change it.
The changes have given the Tote the impetus to develop new corporate branding in a number of key outlets, both on and off the course. It has also taken full advantage of further deregulation last June, which permitted the installation of two amusement-with-prizes machines in betting shops.
Bookmaking is, however, a competitive business. As Lord Wyatt said in another place when the Bill was introduced:
the Tote is a successful, fully commercial enterprise, operating in competition against the biggest bookmaking chains in the country in a cut-throat arena. The margins in bookmaking are small, although it does not seem that way to those of us who have lost money on bets and I believe that the bookie almost always wins. I assure the House that, according to the figures, the margins in bookmaking are small. Bookmakers have also had to compete against the national lottery.

Earlier, I mentioned bookmakers' ability to take bets on the Irish lottery numbers. Lord Wyatt pleaded eloquently for the Tote to be allowed to join in. He said that the Tote was "bleeding" at the rate of nearly £40,000 a week and that
That money could have gone to racing, as all our profits do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 1996; Vol. 575. c. 711–12.]
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for these matters responded to the Tote's pleas in respect of bets on the Irish lottery. An order was passed to allow the Tote to take bets on foreign lotteries and it came into force on 20 December, just in time for the Christmas holiday season.
As I explained earlier, when the Home Secretary exercises his power under the 1972 Act to approve a non-sporting event, the event must be specified. The Tote can therefore now offer such bets. I have seen notices—other hon. Members may also have seen them—outside betting shops giving details of the odds on offer, which the Tote maintains are much better than those of the national lottery.
Naturally, no sooner had the Government taken action to enable the Tote to compete with the Lucky Choice bet than the other bookmakers produced a new non-sporting event on which to bet. Bookmakers have been creative in their response to the challenge of the national lottery, creating their own daily numbers draw—that thing called 49s. The Tote cannot offer that new bet because the order that we made last December was specific to Lucky Choice Clearly, in a fast-moving market with new developments at every turn, it is inappropriate that the Tote must come to the Home Secretary each time it wants to specify a new event.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), we could have gained a few more months on this Bill by bringing forward an order permitting the Tote to participate in 49s. That would have done merely for that purpose, but in June we would have had to change something else, and in July we may have needed to make yet another change. This is a fast-moving market and, rather than having to bring an order through the Home Office to the House every time the bookmakers think of something different on which to bet, it is better to have this Bill.
It is not always easy to frame an order for a particular event, so this Bill is the solution to removing all delay in the future and avoiding technical difficulties. I warmly support it and am grateful for the warm support that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has had from both sides of the House. I believe and trust that the House will support it. We should leave it to the Tote to decide, on its judgment and taste, on what events bets can be offered.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Police (Property) Bill

considered in Committee.

[MISS JANET FOOKES in the Chair]

Clause 1

POWER OF POLICE AUTHORITY TO RETAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

Mr. Piers Merchant: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'a year' and insert '18 months'.
This simple and straightforward amendment seeks to substitute for the period of 12 months the period of 18 months in relation to the time for which the police have to keep property before they can move to acquire it as property in their own name. This is partially a probing amendment to ascertain why the figure of 12 months is in the Bill, but I shall also advance arguments as to why the period should preferably be longer.
By way of explanation, this sub-paragraph is part of a number of conditions that the Bill would impose on the police before they are able to exercise a new right of acquiring ownership of property that has fallen into their possession. Such property may have been forfeited or may otherwise have come into police hands. As we all know, the police acquire a vast amount of property as part of their daily work. Of course they cannot for ever act as custodians of that and decisions must be made on disposing of it in one way or another.
Under the Police (Property) Act 1897, the police have the power to auction this property. That was clarified by regulations passed in 1975. The police do not have the power at present to keep the property even if it would clearly be of great benefit to them. The Bill aims to ensure that they have that power.

Mr. Tim Smith: How long do the police have to keep property under the 1897 legislation before they can auction it?

Mr. Merchant: I was going to come to that point, but I will answer it directly as my hon. Friend asks about it now. Under the 1897 Act—in fact, I believe that it is under the 1975 regulations—the police have to keep property for 12 months before they are able to auction it, although it is six months for property forfeited, so there is a different time scale. However, if they seek to acquire it for themselves rather than to auction it, there is a reason why the period should be different, which I will move on to later.
First, the period of 12 months strikes me as arbitrary, even under the 1897 Act and certainly in the Bill. One needs to take into account various factors that might make a forceful argument for making the period longer. The real owner—the original owner, if you like—of the goods that have passed into police hands needs to be afforded some time to assert his rightful claim. We must take into account factors such as possible illness, possible period abroad, and moving out of the region where the property was originally taken by the police for one reason or another, whether it was lost or part of the proceeds of a crime.
The person who originally owned the property might have moved out of the region and it might have taken time for him to discover where the property was and how to reassert his rights to claim that property, so there are reasons why a period needs to be allowed. In a modern world where people travel much more and where sometimes information from the region where the person used to live takes considerable time to reach him, we might talk in terms of a longer period than that in the Bill.
The second and final argument was touched on, perhaps without his realising it, by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). There is a distinction between the police auctioning goods which have come into their hands and acquiring them, and this is recognised by the fact that the power does not exist at present. Even if the Bill were passed, the power would be used sparingly.
The difference is simple. The police must be seen to be absolutely above criticism when it comes to handling other people's property. Therefore, the regulations need to be tight. It is one thing when goods are being auctioned; when property is to be acquired by the police, it is a different question. It must be clear to all concerned that the police are not in any way misusing their powers to obtain property which could be useful to them. I am sure that the police would never dream of doing mat, but we must make sure by regulation that no one thinks that. For that reason, an extra precaution needs to be put on the police in this Bill, and a period of 18 months will do that.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Perhaps it would be helpful if I speak now to indicate the view of the Government in case my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) is tempted to accede to the amendment. I am afraid that I hope to persuade him otherwise.
The effect of this amendment would be to require property to remain in the possession of the police for 18 months before it could be retained on the decision of the police authority for use by the police. Section 2(3) of the Police (Property) Act 1897 provides that property which has come into the possession of the police in connection with their investigation of a suspected offence may be disposed of after it has remained in the possession of the police for a year. This is to allow time for a person claiming to be the owner of the property to apply to the court for an order for the delivery of the property, as provided for under section I of the Police (Property) Act 1897.
If property can be disposed of after 12 months, I see no reason why a decision to retain an item should not be taken after it has remained in the possession of the police for 12 months. The property could be sold after 12 months and completely disappear from view. It would not be possible to trace it. So it does not make sense to allow a longer period of time for a claim to be made in respect of property which is to be retained in the ownership of the police authority for use by the police force.
After a suitable period of time to allow the owner to make a claim, it is right that a decision should be made about the future ownership of the property. If no period were set, the property would have to be kept by the police indefinitely, and this would lead to considerable expense in terms of storage and maintenance. This is a matter of judgment, and I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), but I believe


that 12 months is the right period of time. It is neither too long nor too short. If property had to be retained by the police for 18 months before it could be retained or otherwise disposed of, it would place an additional burden on the police with no real benefit to anyone.

Mr. Tim Smith: How much unclaimed property do the police have in their possession? How much room does it take up? What burden is it placing on the police at the moment? To what extent would that burden be increased if we were to accept the amendment?

Mr. Maclean: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact inventory of the amount of property that the police have around the country, but it can be considerable. Tracing owners of lost property and getting better property marking systems on to computer are priorities for police forces around the country. I consider it a tragedy—as do the police—that after excellent raids such as Bumblebee, the police can fill warehouses with stolen silver and property which is almost impossible to return because it is not properly marked with a post code. There are warehouses full of JCBs, crawlers and other plant which are impossible to return because plant has no unique vehicle identification numbering system. A Home Office Committee, which I started a year ago, has met plant operators and others to try to draw up security schemes for plant similar to those used by the motor industry Vauxhall led the way in this area, with better and safer locks. If we are not to have more warehouses full of unreturned property, it is absolutely vital that all those in the plant and machinery industries take their responsibilities seriously, as car manufacturers have done.
The short answer to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is that, if police must retain current amounts of property for 18 instead of 12 months, there will, of course, be a 50 per cent. increase on space requirements. I have better uses for police stations than to fill them with property—which I should like to be returned to owners or disposed of as soon as possible.
Amendment No. 6 proposes an 18-month period, which is inconsistent with the 12-month period specified in section 2(3) of the 1897 Act. I have explained to my hon. Friends why I think that the period should be 12 months and why the Bill is correct. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, the Bill's promoter, not to accept the amendment, and I urge the Committee to reject it.

Mr. David Evennett: I am grateful for an opportunity to say a few words on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant)—who is a neighbour, and a very good neighbour, to my constituency in south-east London—for giving us some ammunition and an opportunity to rethink the issue. He and I normally agree on politics, on government and on many other matters but I must disappoint him on this occasion and say that I cannot accept his argument or his amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Minister—who I am delighted to have with us today—has made a very powerful case. In London, under the Metropolitan police, there have been some very successful trawls—such as Bumblebee, which

he highlighted—to recover property. It would not be in the interests of the police or of the public if the police had to keep that property for a further six months before they could dispose of it. Time is important to the police, and they have a very difficult and important job to do. Our duty is to help them, and I believe that all hon. Members believe that they should be supported.
I think that 12 months, as specified in the Bill, is a fair and reasonable time for people to come forward to claim their property, if they want to do so. It would be wrong to change that provision now, not only because of the practical difficulties caused to the police, but because it would be out of line with the 1897 Act, which originally set the 12-month period. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. It has given us an opportunity to highlight the reason why we wanted the 12-month period in the Bill, but I very much hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Merchant: I have listened very carefully and with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Having had an opportunity—which the House has not previously had—to hear why a 12-month period was originally specified in the Bill, I appreciate why those arguments are convincing. I was particularly convinced by the arguments that the police should not be custodians of warehouses, and that their very success in cracking down on crime has resulted in the problem of having to look after such large quantities of property. I also appreciate the argument that property should be disposed of as soon as reasonably proper.
After hearing those arguments, I think that the 12-month period is acceptable. Therefore, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

PROPERTY IN POSSESSION ETC. OF PERSON TAKEN INTO POLICE CUSTODY IN SCOTLAND

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 17, leave out "77" and insert "77(1)".

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 5.

Mr. Maclean: The first part of amendment No. 5 is the most substantial element in this group, so I shall address that first. I hope to be commendably brief.
Amendment No. 5 makes it clear that any expenses incurred by a chief constable in carrying out any of his functions in relation to the class of property to which the new part VIIA of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 applies will be defrayed by the appropriate police authority. Section 77(2) of the 1982 Act relates to the expenses incurred by the chief constable in performing his functions under part VI of the Act in relation to lost or abandoned property. The section requires police authorities to defray such expenses.
The new section 86E(3) of the 1982 Act, as inserted by clause 6, would mean that expenses incurred by the chief constable in carrying out his functions in disposing of the


relevant property are to be defrayed by the police authority. It is appropriate to provide that the chief constable's expenses in carrying out any of his new functions under part VILA should be defrayed by the police authority. There is no reason to restrict that to cases in which the police dispose of the property. The proposed new section 861, inserted by amendment No. 5, together with amendment No. 1, makes provision for all the chief constable's functions under the new part VILA.
Amendment No. 5 also defines the term "chief constable" in part VILA of the Act as the chief constable for the police area in which the property comes into police possession. The term also includes a constable acting under the chief constable's direction for those purposes. That is in line with the definition of the term in part VI of the Act, relating to lost or abandoned property.
With that simple explanation, I hope that the amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Evennett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for explaining those technical amendments. They make the Bill better and more effective and I therefore have great pleasure in accepting them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 34, at end insert—
(2A) Any person who, immediately before the date on which a determination under subsection (1) above is made, owns the property in question, shall be entitled within one year after that date to recover possession of it as owner.".

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Maclean: Section 71(2) and part VI of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 entitle the rightful owner of lost or abandoned property to recover possession of it within one year of the date on which it was disposed of, if it was disposed of by the police otherwise than for value. Amendment No. 2 gives a similar entitlement to the previous owners of property to which the new part VIIA of the 1982 Act applies, in circumstances in which the police have retained the property under the new powers. That means that owners will have at least two years in which to make a claim for their property.
Amendment No. 4 is the more substantial of the two other amendments in the group. Section 76 of the 1982 Act confers a right of appeal on a previous owner of lost or abandoned property against any decision made by the chief constable on entitlement to compensation under section 72.
Amendment No. 4 extends that right of appeal to a sheriff to previous owners of property disposed of by the chief constable under the new section 86E of the new part VII of the Act. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential drafting amendment to allow for the insertion of amendment No. 4.
I hope that the amendments are acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and to the Committee.

Mr. Evennett: The Bill—I hope that it will soon be an Act—will apply not only to England and Wales, but to

Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have pleasure in accepting the technical amendments to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 5, line 40, after "86G." insert "—(1)".

No. 4, page 5, line 42, leave out "; and subsections" and insert—
(2) The previous owner of any property disposed of for value under section 86E of this Act may appeal to the sheriff against any decision of the chief constable made under section 72 of this Act as applied by subsection (3) of section 86E.
(3) Subsections".

No. 5, in page 6, line 6, at end insert—

"Further financial provision

86I. Subsection (2) of section 77 of this Act shall apply in respect of functions under this Part of this Act as that subsection applies in respect of functions under Part VI of this Act.

References in this Part to "chief constable"

86J. In this Part of this Act, "chief constable" means the chief constable for the police area in which the person taken into custody, within the meaning of section 80 of this Act, is so taken; and includes a constable acting under the direction of the chief constable for the purposes of this Part of this Act.".—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Evennett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have been privileged to present the Bill and I thank the supporters and sponsors from all three main political parties for their help and support. I also thank the Minister for his contributions and for his support during the Bill's progress.
The measure is modest, but it has considerable support not only in the House but throughout the country and among police forces. That is important. Currently, the police are required by law to dispose of unclaimed or forfeited property in their possession by auction and that needs to be amended. Police time and effort to dispose of such property is wasteful when they do so much other important work. We do not want them to look after lost property and it is important to assist them in whatever way we can so that they can get on with their real job of apprehending and dealing with criminals. My police chief, Philip Selwood of Bexleyheath police station, which covers Bexley, does an excellent job and has my total support for his continuing work. We congratulate all police forces on their tremendous work.
The Bill would allow some equipment to be taken into police use if that is appropriate. Alternatively, at the end of 12 months, the police would be able to dispose of property that has been forfeited or is unclaimed. This modest measure will help them in their work and it will be appreciated by the police and others in our society. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I have been asked to respond to the measure on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I shall be brief.
In his introduction to the Bill published in The House Magazine on 2 December last year, the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) referred to debates during the passage of the Bill that led to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
In Standing Committee B, in reply to an amendment that had been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) described the amendment as objectionable.
because it would remove the existing legal safeguards which protect the interests of innocent people whose property has been used for a criminal purpose without their knowledge or consent.
He also said.
If a power for the police to make use of forfeited property were deemed desirable in principle, the necessary provision should be made by amendment to section 2(1) of the 1897 Act and regulations issued under it. That would ensure that the protection already afforded to the blameless owners of forfeited property under that Act was retained."[Official Report. Standing Committee B. 3 March 1994; c. 1172.]
I acknowledge on behalf of the Opposition that the Bill does exactly that.
The earlier debate focused on the proposal to allow the police greater powers to determine what to do with computer hardware and software seized during the course of a criminal investigation. It was suggested that the police, in pursuit of the criminals who supply hardcore pornography via the Internet, should be empowered to turn that equipment against the criminals. That idea had arisen following evidence presented to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Metropolitan police and the Police Federation.
We therefore welcome the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford on his success in winning a place in the ballot. We are satisfied that its provisions will ensure that the blameless owners of stolen property continue to be protected and, further, that the

responsibility is placed squarely on the shoulders of chief police officers in Scotland to discover the owners of property wherever possible and to notify them of their right to reclaim it before action is taken to dispose of it.
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, it will be necessary to introduce new regulations governing the exercise of the powers conferred in the Bill and for the Home Office to issue guidance to chief officers of police. It has been a matter of education for me since I was elected to the House in 1992 to observe the increasingly numerous occasions on which changes to legislation are made by statutory instrument. Indignation has turned to interest as the general election draws closer. It may even be possible that it will be my hon. and right hon. Friends who introduce from the Dispatch Box the amendments that will be required as a result of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book.

1 pm

Mr. Maclean: I suggest that the hon. Lady does not risk her money on the Tote or anywhere else by betting on that latter point.
The Government warmly welcome the decision by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford to introduce a Bill whose purpose is to prevent the police from having in every case to dispose at auction of particular items of unclaimed or forfeited property which are of such specific use that it would be more efficient to keep them for use in the police service rather than having to sell them at an inadequate price on the second-hand market.
As the House knows, it is a terribly technical and complicated Bill. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has not been deterred by its complexities and technicalities or by having to make equivalent changes in the appropriate Scottish legislation. He sees the Bill as worthwhile, and the House agrees with him. It is certainly the Government's view. I congratulate him once again on his success in getting the Bill to this stage. I wish it a speedy journey through another place and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Human Tissue (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. John Marshall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When one introduces a private Member's Bill, the first question one is always asked is, "Whose Bill is it? Is it the Department's?" Oh, that it were. Then one is asked whether it is from an outside organisation. This Bill is not. In fact, it is a carbon copy of a Bill introduced in another place by the late Lord Finsberg. It is identical, down to the last comma, to the Bill that he succeeded in getting through all its stages in another place some two years ago.
The late Lord Finsberg was not only a colleague in the House but a near neighbour in that his constituency of Hampstead and Highgate was contiguous with mine. He had a good reputation and record of service to his constituents. He was one of the few men in British politics who saw service at the local level when he was the distinguished leader of Camden council, on the national stage in the House of Commons and on the European scene through his membership of the Council of Europe. The Bill is part of his legacy, and I am pleased to try to progress it this afternoon. When Geoffrey Finsberg died, it was said of him that his motto had been "Service to others before himself. Service to others is the philosophy of those who donate organs so that others may have a better life and a longer life.
Some of us are of an age that enables us to remember the reaction when Christiaan Barnard undertook the first heart transplant operations. The initial operations were medically successful in one sense, but the patients lived only a few days because they tended to reject the new heart. Heart transplants were initially a major step for medical science, but they did little to prolong the life of individual patients. Each one was newsworthy and we received daily bulletins on how the patient was doing, but what was newsworthy then is commonplace today.
Recently, I took part in a telephone appeal for the Jewish National Fund, which every year has a "Green Sunday" appeal, normally in January. I asked a certain individual whether he would be willing to make a donation and he replied that he had received a new heart nine years ago and that all the charitable fundraising and giving that he now did was for Papworth hospital where he had received his new heart, rather than for any other charity. Heart transplants today prolong life and transform the quality of life of those who receive them.
Some years ago, I received an invitation to join in the Kidney Foundation's London bridges walk and, as I had suffered from nephritis at a relatively young age, I agreed to take part. During that and subsequent walks, I have met many people who are awaiting transplants and many who have received them. On one occasion, I met a young boy whose mother had given him one of her kidneys, so she can now say that she has given her son the gift of life twice over—first when he was born and then when he subsequently received her kidney. He was a bright, cheerful active lad who was benefiting from his kidney transplant. On those walks and at photo calls—like some hon. Members, I am modest and reluctant to take part in photo calls, but I can occasionally be persuaded to do

so—I have met people who are awaiting kidney transplants. The difference between the children who have had a transplant and those who are still waiting for one is amazing.
We all have friends and colleagues who have received a kidney transplant and we all remember the contribution of the late Michael McNair-Wilson to the House after having received a kidney transplant. He remained to the end an active Back Bencher. I shall always remember a visit that he and I paid to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in February 1992 to discuss the case for compensating those who had been infected with HIV on the national health service. The Prime Minister had previously agreed to compensate haemophiliacs who had been infected with HIV but, at that time, a small group of people who were not haemophiliacs were not going to receive compensation. Michael McNair-Wilson said to the Prime Minister, "The reason I'm putting this forward is that I might have been one of those people, because I was receiving blood transfusions and might have received infected blood." Those words persuaded the Prime Minister and, 10 days later, he announced a change of policy.
What happened to Michael McNair-Wilson has happened to many other people—a new kidney has immeasurably improved the quality of their life and has prolonged their life. Some years ago, there was a threat to the renal unit at the Royal Free hospital and I met several of the kidney patients there who were protesting and trying to safeguard their unit, which they did. Many of them had received a kidney transplant over 10 years ago. Before they had received the transplant, the quality of their life had been very low and the length of their life had been uncertain but, after the transplant, their whole life was transformed. They were no longer subject to dialysis—and the Treasury would say that dialysis was very expensive. However, this debate should be about not money, but principle. It should be about improving patients' quality of life.
Towards the end of his life, Winston Churchill was once asked how he was, and he said that he was all right, considering the alternative. The alternatives for a person on dialysis are either that he does not have dialysis and dies, or that he receives a transplant and lives a longer, better life.
Despite the tremendous benefits to individuals of kidney transplants, there is a huge shortage of donors of organs. We know that, at present, more than 5,000 people are waiting for a kidney transplant and we know that some of them will the before they have that opportunity. We also know that there are people waiting for dialysis and they are doing so because, until some people receive a transplant, they will continue to clog up the dialysis system. Some people are waiting for a kidney and may not get it and may die, and others are waiting to go on to dialysis because there are so many on it.
The situation is so grave that some people may have to receive a transplant from a living person. I mentioned the young boy who received a kidney from his mother. Recently, a husband received a kidney transplanted from his wife. They were fortunate to be compatible both in life and in their kidneys, because one of the problems with kidney transplants is the need to receive a compatible one. Those sacrifices are a sign of true love, but they are not recommended by doctors, who believe that it is unwise for a human being to be left with one kidney.
Not only are there too few transplants, which has the corollary that many people must remain on dialysis for much longer, but as a result many people who would benefit from dialysis may not receive it. I have read a statistic—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm whether it is still accurate—that we were 21st in the European dialysis league, ahead of Bulgaria but behind far too many countries.
On 16 and 17 November 1987, there was a conference of European Health Ministers, sponsored by the Council of Europe. Those who know me well will agree that I do not say that something is good simply because it is done in another European country. I do not say that something is good because it is done in the majority of European countries. However, considering what was said at that conference and the description that the conference gave of the law in other countries, I believe that we should re-examine the law in this country and change it.
I apologise for the fact that I shall describe the position in various countries alphabetically, but that is by far the easiest way. After all, I was not educated at a grammar school—but then, despite the new-found enthusiasm of the Labour party for grammar schools, many hon. Members were not educated in one either.
In Austria, it is regarded as acceptable to remove organs from corpses regardless of age, provided that the person has not expressed an objection during his or her life. The views of close relatives are not taken into account.
In Belgium, organs may be removed from Belgian citizens unless it is proved that they have expressed opposition during their life, but those who are not Belgian citizens must express consent.
In Denmark, it is acceptable under Danish law to remove organs from corpses provided that the deceased has not expressly objected to removal, and the views of close relatives will not be overriding. Thus, Denmark is one of the countries where one must opt out of organ donation, not opt in.
In France, it is acceptable to remove organs from corpses provided that the deceased has not expressed an objection to removal. People have to opt out rather than opt in; the views of relatives will be taken into account only if the deceased was a minor or incapacitated or if relatives can testify that the deceased expressed opposition to the removal of organs.
In Germany, consent has to be given before somebody dies for any organs to be removed; otherwise the consent of relatives has to be sought, but relatives cannot overrule the wishes of the deceased. It is a case of opting in rather than opting out.
You will be relieved to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in southern Ireland the rules are the same as in the United Kingdom. The wishes of relatives can overrule the wishes of the deceased.
In Italy, it is acceptable to remove organs on the basis of presumed consent when no express objection has been made by the individual during his or her life. Someone has to opt out of organ transplantation rather than opt in. The views of relatives will not be overriding.
In tiny Luxembourg, it is acceptable to remove organs provided the person did not object in writing during his or her life. The College of Physicians in Luxembourg has recommended that the views of relatives should be overriding.
In Holland, organs may be removed provided that the deceased has given express consent or, in the absence of a donor card, the relatives of the deceased have given consent. In principle, the wishes of the deceased are paramount, but in practice the relatives have a right of veto, although the Dutch are seeking to change the law and may do so in the near future.
In Norway, which is outside the European Union, organs can be removed provided that the deceased has not expressed opposition. It is a case of opting out rather than opting in, and relatives cannot overrule.
In Portugal, removal cannot be performed if the deceased had objected during his or her life. People opt out rather than opt in.
In Spain, organs can be removed in the absence of an express objection during a person's lifetime, although the views of close relatives can override the views of the deceased.
In Sweden, organs can be removed if the deceased has given written consent.
In Switzerland, it is acceptable to remove organs provided the deceased had not expressed any objection. People have to opt out of organ transfer rather than opt in.
In Turkey, organs can be removed if the deceased has given consent. The views of relatives cannot override those of the deceased.
Most countries have a process of opting out of organ transplantation, not opting in. In almost all countries, the views of the deceased override the views of relatives. What people in this country find slightly surprising is that, when a person signs a card, it is often automatically assumed that his or her organs will be transplanted. We know that that is not so and that doctors will seek the views of relatives before they transplant the organs.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Can my hon. Friend explain one point that puzzles me? Perhaps he can explain the point with regard to the practice in other countries, to which he referred extensively. What happens when the body of a deceased person is under the control of relatives, as may well happen, and those relatives object to transplantation or to the organs being removed? What are the authorities able to do? What do they do in practice? Do the police call at the house to take away the body? How do they pressurise grieving next-of-kin who do not want to release the body?

Mr. Marshall: If grieving next-of-kin said, "You cannot have the body. It is going straight to the crematorium", one would be unlikely to wish to intercept the body in the coffin and take it away. However, we must remember that a large number of people die not at home but in hospital.
One of the problems with our present system is that, in the United Kingdom, the relatives of 50 per cent. of those who die in intensive care beds and who have requested that their organs be used for transplants, refuse to allow organs to be removed. That is a high figure when we consider that, if we give someone else our heart, we give them a chance to live for years to come. When someone dies, we can give a kidney to two people because they get one each. So we can give two people the chance of life. We may give someone else our lungs. One Member of the House was given lungs by a donor. Corneas can also


be donated. So we can benefit several people by donating our organs. The high proportion of relatives who refuse permission demonstrates the difficulties. I understand from the Department of Health that 25 per cent. of useable organs cannot be used because the relatives object. That seems a high figure.
Kidney dialysis is like a moving escalator. For every person who gets off it by receiving a new kidney, there are people at the bottom waiting to get on. Each time we have debated human transplants in recent years, the number of people waiting for a kidney transplant has been more than 5,000. The number of kidney transplants peaked in 1989, when there were 1,732. In 1995, the last year for which I have figures, there were 1,645. So more than 5,000 people have been waiting year by year. One of the reasons why so many people are waiting is the current law in the United Kingdom, which is different from that in many other European countries.
We are told that one of the reasons for not changing the law is that when doctors go to relatives and ask for the organs of the deceased, if the relatives say yes, the second question, in good taste, is whether the deceased was suffering from human immune deficiency virus, hepatitis C or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I gather that CJD is difficult to detect even by doctors so I suspect that the average relative would not know whether the deceased had suffered from CJD. I suspect that many mothers do not know what their sons are up to and do not discuss over Sunday lunch whether their son has HIV. It is an issue which, perhaps for reasons of good taste, should not be discussed with relatives and one on which they may not give a good answer.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend said that the relatives of 50 per cent. of those who died in intensive care refused to allow organ transplant. Does that refusal come about as a result of the nature of the responses given to the secondary questions or do 50 per cent. give a flat no because it is not something that they wish to contemplate at that particular moment?

Mr. Marshall: It is much more the latter than the former, but we have to accept that our relatives do not always want to discuss that issue. They are traumatised by death. However, I believe that death would be less of a trauma to them if they were told that their relative had signed a card which was decisive and that, in dying, their relative was giving a chance of a much better and longer life to others.
We must accept that organ transplants have altered dramatically since the pioneering days of the 1960s. People have recognised that, in dying, they can give life to others. The gift of life is the greatest gift that one man can give to another. My Bill is designed to make that easier, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading this afternoon.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on raising an important subject, about which I am sure many of our constituents care deeply. Some of them will have been directly or indirectly

involved in the decision-making that my hon. Friend described, which takes place at a time of great grief and difficulty for families. Others will have been involved in their role as medical professionals.
My hon. Friend treated the subject fairly and comprehensively. I congratulate him on that, and on taking up the torch, as it were, from one of our predecessors in the House, whom we all admired and respected. I am glad that my hon. Friend saw fit to do that.
I confess that I am deeply ambivalent about the Bill, which is one of the reasons why I am glad to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like all hon. Members, I of course recognise the great contribution that transplant surgery, in all its wonderful forms, can make not only to people's quality of life, but to their very existence. I am well aware of the growing number of examples of people who would not be with us today, and would not be contributing to the community as they do, were it not for the miracles of transplant surgery.
I am equally aware that, as my hon. Friend said so fairly, transplant surgery depends on a reliable and regular flow of donated organs in an appropriate condition, so that they are not dangerous for the recipients, so that they are not rejected by the recipients' bodies and so that all the other medical criteria are satisfied.
I am, perhaps, slightly more aware of this than some might be because I have the good fortune to have the extremely successful St. Helier hospital in my constituency—you may well know it, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) will know it well.
St. Helier hospital is well known for many facets of its work, but what is relevant to the Bill is the fact that we have a highly successful and respected regional unit for renal dialysis and transplantation at St. Helier. I know Dr. Eisinger, the director, very well, and I can speak with some authority in saying that the renal unit saves lives, improves the quality of lives and does invaluable work. That links up with my hon. Friend's argument because, clearly, without the techniques and raw materials, so to speak, the unit could not do all the wonderful things that it does.
I strongly support the donor card campaign to which my hon. Friend referred. I am perplexed, however, and I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend or from the Minister why, legally and in practice, the possession of a donor card in one's wallet or handbag does not automatically conclude the issue. The Government, rightly, go to a great deal of trouble to promote the donor card as a sensible idea, especially in relation to people who have the tragic misfortune to die at a young age. The organs of such people are more desirable, if I may express it that way, because of their vigour and youthfulness.
Why, therefore, when people make the conscious decision to carry a donor card, can subsequent legal or practical difficulties arise after their death, when the relatives, in their grief and shock, often find that they cannot bring themselves to give approval, as my hon. Friend would wish, to the decision to remove organs?
My hon. Friend correctly devoted much of his speech to the onus of decision making. He asked whether the House favours the idea of opting in or opting out of the procedure, and whether it would be possible for relatives


to play cards—if I may couch the argument in such terms—that are of a higher value than those held by the deceased when a decision is made.
Intuitively, I favour the opting-in argument, which I believe is more desirable ethically. In saying that, I am adopting a position that is likely—all things being equal—to reduce the number of available, suitable organs. We must face that consequence. However, I remain a little uneasy in this area. I believe that real value must be attached to the susceptibilities of the relatives of the deceased and to their grief and confusion. Such feelings are particularly strong when death occurs suddenly in hospital in a remote and rather impersonal environment. Perhaps we should take account of that aspect of the moral and ethical dilemma rather more than my hon. Friend suggested in his admirable speech.
I take a strong view on euthanasia: I am strongly and categorically opposed to it, whether it is voluntary, semi-voluntary or compulsory. Because I take that view, I am conscious—my hon. Friends may not share my misgivings—of a possible slippery slope regarding public attitudes. Provisions in law that override the misgivings and objections of families in tragic circumstances may lead—if we are not sensible in our law making in this and in subsequent Parliaments—to a situation where, for practical, technical and common sense reasons, it is deemed appropriate and utilitarian for people not only to plunder bodies for parts, but to take a rational decision, which I would regard as horrific, to end a person's life because that is what a cost-benefit analysis dictates. My hon. Friends may think that I am exaggerating the position and becoming a little hysterical. However, when considering ethical issues such as this, we must emphasise the likely long-term consequences of certain decisions which, in themselves, may seem perfectly correct.
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's initiative. He has done the House a service in requiring hon. Members to re-think the matter. I sympathise with his argument, and I strongly support the tremendous efforts of the health professionals who are involved in this branch of medicine. I pay special tribute to the staff at the renal unit at St Helier hospital in my constituency. Having said that, I add two caveats: first, we should cling to the principle of opting in rather than opting out; and, secondly, it should be possible in the minority of cases—which is what it will become in the fullness of time—for the nearest and dearest to veto or trump the decision of the deceased. If we pursue our campaign of dramatising and publicising the great value of organ donation to society, it is clear that the practice will occur more often. That can only benefit the recipients. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the legislation, but I hope that he and the Minister will take account of those two important reservations.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on introducing an important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said so eloquently, the Bill turns on an extremely tricky area. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South produced some very good arguments in advocating why we should go down the road that is set out in the Bill. I congratulate him warmly on that. I am sure that many people throughout the country will have a great deal of sympathy with everything that he said.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said about the late Lord Finsberg, who initiated the Bill. The fact that it is a measure started by Geoffrey Finsberg is almost a reason in itself why we should support it. It would be a tremendous tribute to him. He had a long and distinguished career in politics, in local government, in the House and in another place. His tragic death has left a hole in all our lives. All of us in the Conservative party in London feel his loss enormously and remember what he did in rebuilding the fighting machine that the London Conservative party became in the 1970s. I pay a warm tribute to my late hon. Friend for all that he did, including initiating the Bill.
It is almost impossible to speak on the issues raised by the Bill without making an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other speech. We could, of course, go along automatically with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said in introducing the Bill, but it is not quite as simple as that.
There are 6,000 people waiting for organ transplants, of whom 5,000 are waiting for kidneys. We are told that there is no lack of money and that there is clinical expertise. I know that from what I have been told by hospitals in my constituency, and especially by the Clementine Churchill hospital, which carries out private operations. The problem lies with the shortage of organ donors. It is a worldwide problem and a worldwide business. One hesitates to call anything in such a sensitive medical area a business, but we must recognise that it is one.
The falling number of road accident deaths has meant that not so many kidneys are being made available. Advances in neurological practice have also had an impact. I understand that we were able to attract a great many foreign-sourced kidneys into the United Kingdom because we had a much better and quicker ability than other countries to match kidneys.
The allowable timetable has, of course, increased with better technology being available to keep transplanted kidneys. However, we were able to say that within the allowable timetable we would be able to ensure that a kidney that had come from another part of Europe, or more especially from the United States, would be made use of. We were able to say, "We can definitely make use of this kidney if you get it on to a particular flight." The United States would not have been able to match the kidney with a possible recipient. Technological advances and an increasing ability to datamatch in the United States have meant that we have lost out.
There is a shortage of organs and it is not surprising that that has prompted a number of people, including some doctors and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, to propose a change in the law with a view to retrieving more organs from deceased persons.
I ask my hon. Friend, however, to imagine a doctor in a hospital trying to take organs against the wishes of a distraught parent of a young person killed in a road accident, or against those of a pregnant woman whose husband has just been killed. It would be absolutely horrendous to put such a proposition to grieving relatives at that difficult time. In both those instances, the dying people would probably have expressed no wish about what should happen to their organs when or if they died because they would not even have thought that they might die. One can see that such a proposition would cause


enormous damage, primarily to the dying person's family. The family would already be traumatised and would be further traumatised by that request.
I therefore wonder what would happen to the organ donor scheme. I understand that that is precisely what has damaged organ donor schemes in other European countries and we must take seriously the prospect that it could happen here. I do not seek to criticise doctors, but for understandable reasons, a doctor who believed that he could save a patient's sight, transform his way of life or even save his life might become over-anxious to get hold of a donated organ. Inevitably, the doctor would put more pressure on a dying person's family than would be suitable at such a difficult time. The doctor would not mean to do so, but doctors are only human and if they felt that an opportunity was available to them, they would try to take it.
As legislators, therefore, we must be extremely cautious in ensuring that that does not happen. Clause 1(3) is controversial as it removes the present provision for considering, in certain circumstances, the wishes of relatives. Clause 1(4) reinforces that provision by preventing anyone from prohibiting removal of any part of the body, except in specified circumstances. However, the Bill does not deal with the point that I made earlier: how an angry or grieving family could be prevented from prohibiting removal of an organ. That matter should be specifically addressed.
Before we allow ourselves to go down that route, we must deal with that matter because it would harm the cause of organ donation. Who would lay himself or his family open to such a provision if he believed that organ donation would become an automatic process, that control would be taken away from him, and that things that he did not want to happen would happen automatically in hospital in those circumstances?
It is a Government priority to maximise the supply of organs for transplantation and I am sure that relatives' refusal is a matter of concern which Ministers and the Department of Health are addressing. My noble Friend Lady Cumberlege, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, raised that point when the late Lord Finsberg presented the Bill in another place. A more fruitful course, however, would be to continue to promote organ donation through publicity and education, encouraging people to join the NHS organ donor register. We should also encourage them to discuss openly with their relatives their wishes and those of their family.
I hope that I am not robbing my hon. Friend the Minister of a point that he may wish to make later. He adds to my guilt that I do not have an organ donor card, as I see that he is studying his as he sits on the Front Bench. I notice that he has now quickly put it away, but it is a great credit to him that he has one and I must look into the matter for myself.
The Government have shown their commitment to increasing the supply of organs through a number of interesting initiatives in recent years. That has included television and other media publicity, organ consent boxes on driving licences, educating hospital staff about discussing donation with relatives and a reimbursement scheme for donating hospitals. All those are important and we have to get it as much as possible into the public consciousness that all those routes are open to people.
The NHS organ donor register was launched in October 1994. I understand that already 4 million people have applied to join it. The register can be quickly accessed by transplant co-ordinators in hospitals and the families can then be consulted with sensitivity. The Department of Health continues to give considerable publicity to that register; we all should be pleased to note that, as the number on it increased, the number of refusals should therefore decrease. Currently, there are about 10 to 12 each week whose details were on the register—about half of the total number of donors—so it has had a significant impact.
In the Department of Health, as in any Government Department, such things are considered with a new perspective and perhaps with new thoughts. There may be new ways of doing it, but the fact that the total is about 10 to 12 each week is a tribute to the way in which the scheme was put together in the first place. I hope that we will be able to do even better. Therefore, rather than introduce a measure of compulsion, it is preferable that the Government should continue to promote organ donation through publicity and education and through encouraging people to join the register.
I should like comment on the study by the UK Transport Co-ordinators Association—[HON. MEMBERS: "Transplant."] The UK Transplant Co-ordinators Association. I beg hon. Members' pardon. What did I say? I am not going to suggest that I cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, but I cannot read a paragraph and talk at the same time. I was trying to say that the UK Transplant Co-ordinators Association and clinicians confirm that it is almost unknown for relatives to refuse consent if they know that the deceased has expressed a wish to be a donor.
That is the crux of the debate. If there were evidence that people were overturning the express wish of their deceased relative, we would have to think again, but there is no such evidence. Refusal nearly always occurs when the deceased has not left instructions that he or she wishes to donate. The study that I referred to by UKTCA and MORI shows that the commonest reasons for refusal are claims that the deceased has said that he or she did not wish to donate, and the inability of relatives to agree in the absence of instructions. Unless a future survey along the same lines proves that things have changed and that a barrier is going up against the deceased person's wishes, we have to go the way we are going.
The Bill has much to commend it. The thoughts behind it have much to commend them. Clearly, people who are desperate for a transplant operation want the Government to go much further, but our job as legislators is to say, "Hold on a minute. What is the balance of rights in this? What is the balance of rights and wrongs? What is the balance of people having control over their own lives and their future?" We have to say today that the balance has been struck about right and that, regrettably, the Bill goes just that bit too far.
I hope that, in responding to the Bill, the Government will introduce new measures that are along the lines that they have been advancing, and give us fresh thoughts about how to increase the number of organ donors and those saying that they wish to be an organ donor in the event of their death. In addition, I hope that the Government will not support the Bill's line, at least at the moment.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I commend this Bill, and I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). The Bill is short—it is contained in one page. I wish that we had commendably short Bills such as this all the time, as it would make the work of the Chamber much easier. It harks back to the time when the Chamber frequently had short Bills. In 1876, Prime Minister Disraeli produced one of the most momentous pieces of legislation of the Victorian period, the Royal Titles Act. That, too, was only one page long.
This Bill deals with the sensitive area of death and what we do with the human body. My welcome for it is based on my knowledge that donors have saved lives with their kidneys, hearts, corneas, lungs, livers and skin grafts—although skin grafts often come from live donors. The way in which one neighbour helps another in this context is one of the most heartening parts of our so-called selfish society. I welcome the fact that people are coming forward honourably and generously to give their very own organs to save lives. I believe that to be heroic, and it is an adjunct to people giving blood to save lives.
It is right that a person who is giving a vital organ, or some other part of his body, expresses his own view about it. As a society, we have recognised for hundreds of years the right of an individual to decide on the disposal of his property after death. That has been true since this House passed the Wills Act 1837, which is still used as the determinant Act for the disposal of property. The same principle should apply to the human body. The Bill requires
a person lawfully in possession of the body of a deceased person to authorise the donation of the body or any specified part of the body for therapeutic or medical purposes if the deceased person had requested such a donation.
That principle is at the heart of this Bill, and I am happy to support it.
As a lawyer who has acted in this area, I have experience of trying to recognise an individual's right to decide on what happens beyond death. I believe that one recognises a person's desires if that person at that point is of sound mind. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister, or my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, to assure me that the form for the donor card will contain a requirement to assess whether the person who signs the card is of sound mind, so that we can honourably recognise his decision after his death. Perhaps that matter could come up in Committee. What will happen if, in future, medical science finds a way in which to perform human brain transplants? We may be many decades away from such transplants, but it is not ridiculous to suggest the possibility. In the 1920s, for example, it may have been thought ridiculous to suggest that we might transplant a human heart. I realise that, under our current understanding of the law and the Bill's provisions, we are not considering brain transplants—as the Bill deals with persons who are deceased, and of course the definition of "death" is based on brain death—but I believe that a parliamentary debate on the issue may be necessary in future, and that it will involve greater ethical issues. The thoughts on euthanasia expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) are very pertinent to those ethical issues.
The main ethical issue today—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South will assure the House that he had it in mind when tabling his Bill—is to

ensure that, under the current system, it is never suggested to people who give their organs, "You would be better off dead, because someone else could use your organs." I say that bluntly, not because I think that such a suggestion is likely to be made but because it could be made. The House's job is to foresee possibilities, and I hope that, perhaps in Committee—with the addition of a few words or a small clause, although I do not resile from my praise of the Bill's brevity—we can ensure that such pressure is never put on people.

Mr. Forman: indicated assent.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful for this opportunity to welcome the Bill, and I assure the House of my support for it, particularly because it deals with voluntary donations. I hope that the Bill's successful passage will send out a reminder to the public that to give a part of one's body can be life saving, that it is honourable and generous, and that it can be a human being's last act to help a neighbour. I hope that the Bill's passage and this debate will somehow increase such acts.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on promoting his Bill, which provides an opportunity to debate an important issue. The hon. Gentleman gave us a splendid tour of how organ donation operates around the world; I congratulate him also on his research. I doubt whether many people would argue with the proposition that there is a shortage of organ and tissue donors in Britain. The Bill is not the first attempt to address the issue of how to acquire more donors.
We should also remember that donors are needed in life as well as in death. We frequently hear calls, especially in the winter months, for more and new blood donors. Emergency appeals for bone marrow donors seem to be made more often these days, and we even hear appeals, occasionally, for living organ donors. However, the newly deceased provide the greatest potential supply of organs and human tissue. Kidneys, hearts, lungs and livers are needed for suffering patients; there is also a need for human tissue, such as corneas to restore sight. There is now an opportunity for deceased people to donate their skin for use as specialist dressings and grafting material for people suffering from very serious burns.
The Bill attempts to deal with the apparent and long-standing problem of a lack of donors. I say that it is an apparent problem because the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority—the body responsible for overseeing these matters—does not collect figures annually or make estimates of the number of potential donors. Figures are certainly available for the number needing a donor. The Minister mentioned during an Adjournment debate last week that 6,000 people are awaiting organ transplants, around 5,000 of whom need kidney transplants.
Those figures seem to change little year on year. In March last year, for example, the Minister told the House in a written answer that 6,122 people were awaiting transplant surgery, 5,280 of whom needed kidney transplants. He also told us that 402 people had died in the previous year while on the waiting list. I have been affected by that—as has the House—because my good


friend Jimmy Boyce, who was the Member of Parliament for Rotherham, died while waiting for a heart transplant. We all felt for Jimmy.
This is a continuing problem. Vigorous efforts should be made to encourage a greater supply of organs and human tissue. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in congratulating the NHS organ donor register on its efforts. Having 4 million people on the register is a good start, but I am sure that we can all make greater efforts.
In addition to the clear humanitarian reasons for increasing the supply of donors, there are sound economic reasons for transplantation. I understand from the National Kidney Federation that kidney dialysis costs around £10,000 per patient per year, but that supporting a post-operative kidney patient costs only £3,000 to £5,000—and the patient may have not only a more productive life after a transplant, but a better quality of life.
Modern medical advances and the great leaps forward that have been made in transplant technology and rejection suppression mean that the pool of people suitable for transplant grows continuously. It follows that the number of people whose quality of life could be bettered is also increasing.
The supply of organs for donation appears to have reached a plateau. Several solutions to that problem have been put forward. Elective ventilation—artificially maintaining the integrity of a dead patient's organs until consent can be obtained—is perhaps the most frequently considered. Another possibility is to require people to opt out of organ donation, rather than the current system of opting in through the national register and the donor card. I understand that that is favoured by the British Kidney Patients Association, among other interested groups.
Recently, it has been proposed that the organ supply problem can be solved by the breeding and use of transgenetic animals. There appears to be a broad consensus on the ethics of that approach, but there are still important public health and moral implications to be considered.
The Bill would impose an obligation on the person in charge of the deceased person's body to carry out the wishes of the deceased on organ donation. That is certainly a bold solution, but it is not without pitfalls. First, there is the problem of consent. The Human Tissue Act 1961 was clear that the possibility of a deceased person having withdrawn consent to organ donation was ground for refusing to allow donation.
The Bill would remove consideration of the possible withdrawal of consent. In theory, any consent document signed at any time by a deceased person could be viewed as an agreement to donate organs. There is a danger of people, mindful of the fact that they may later change their minds, choosing not to sign an organ or tissue donation consent form. It is therefore possible that the number of people volunteering to become organ donors will reduce. We certainly want to consider the matter further in Committee.
The Bill proposes to remove the veto from relatives and others who may have a connection with the deceased. It is often said that it is wrong to ask a spouse or other relative to sign a donor consent form at the time of a

loved one's death. Strong emotions do not make for calm decisions. Perhaps there is some merit in amendment of the law, but I am sure that the House agrees that there are difficult legal questions about a deceased's remains. Those questions need to be addressed. Has the Minister taken advice about that? Will the Bill, should it become law, require consequential amendments to other statutes?
Finally, there is the issue of clinical opinion. I am told that, in the main, transplant specialists are opposed to any system of donation other than the current one. Has the Minister received that same view? If clinicians do not want to change the law, the Bill may be unworkable. However, if medical specialists are lobbying for a change in the law, the Minister should state what steps he and the Department of Health are taking to address clinicians' concerns.
The Bill raises important matters that I am sure the House will wish to consider further and in deeper detail. The hon. Member for Hendon, South has made a timely contribution to the debate on organ donation, and the Opposition hope to have the opportunity to study it further and in more detail in Committee.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We are debating an important subject and I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on presenting an opportunity to debate it. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to our late friend Lord Finsberg who so ably represented the constituency of Hampstead and Highgate for many years. I was born in Highgate and I know that he was a good and able Member of Parliament who gave the House, his constituency and his country distinguished service.
I have listened to the debate with interest and it is obvious that there is much concern about the lack of organs for transplant. Organs become available only in the most distressing circumstances. In every culture, in every society, and in every age, people are reluctant to discuss some issues. In Victorian England, people did not talk about sex, but they did talk about death and money. In modern Britain, death is the taboo subject. We need only to consider how we approach the friends or relatives of those who are faced with imminent death to know how sensitively we feel that we need to behave.
The problem with the matter that we are debating is that people think it is about death. The only time relatives are formally approached is when they are confronted by the death of a loved one. To approach the problem from the angle of a change in legislation—effectively to ride roughshod over the understanding and sensitivities of relatives—is to go about it in the wrong way. We need to change the terms of the discussion. We must explain to relatives, perhaps at a propitious moment, which would be before they are confronted by the death of a loved one, that the issue is not about death but about giving life—and a better life—to others.
I carry a kidney donor card, which is now called an organ donor card because I have ticked the box to show that everything is up for grabs in the event of my death, but I have never been asked to consult the next of kin who appear on my card about what I want; nor have my next of kin ever been asked to record their understanding of what they think should happen to my body in the event


of my death. We need not an amendment of the law to turn over people's sensitivities, but a public campaign to change the instructions on the card that we carry to give someone a better life.
The organ donor register should, for example, contain not only the wishes of the donor, but the pre-death consent of the next of kin as to what will happen in the event of the donor's death. We need to change what happens so that obtaining the consent of the potential donor and his next of kin is not the end of the matter; in the event of the donor's death, the relatives must know what they will face.
The trouble with the present arrangement is that, although we have achieved a great deal in getting people to carry organ donor cards, we have not prepared the relatives for the shock of what will confront them. A dead person's relatives are often not in the correct psychological state to deal with the fact that someone has died, let alone to choose what happens to the body. That is precisely the kind of decision that they are incapable of making unless they can be persuaded that they have already made that decision.
I beg hon. Members to think about tackling the problem from the opposite direction. A change in the law is inappropriate; persuasion is the answer. There are examples of how we can change by invocation how people behave and what is regarded as acceptable. Twenty years ago, people thought nothing of getting into a car when they were over the limit, to drive home from the pub. That was part of the game that they played with the police. Such behaviour has become wholly unacceptable. How did we achieve that change? It was done without changing the law, the method of enforcement or the penalties—it was done by invocation.
We need a much better campaign of invocation and education—and perhaps a change in the system of recording the wishes of organ donors and their relatives. In that way, people will be ready to give the necessary consent at the appropriate time. It is therefore with regret and considerable anxiety, but some certainty, that I oppose the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland: I greatly appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has introduced the Bill. I had long been an admirer of Lord Finsberg. In fact, I was part of his campaign team when he was first elected to Parliament, and I had remained in touch ever since. It is very moving that one of his last acts was to introduce the original Bill.
The crux of the matter is that about 6,000 people are now waiting for an organ. In 25 per cent. of cases, the families of potential organ donors resist the request that their relatives' organs should be made available to give life. That fact led me to discuss the issue with my husband because, years ago, I had signed an organ donor card, and so had he. What I had not realised is that, in the event of my death, my husband, even knowing that I had signed the card, could—in his distress or after having second thoughts—override my wishes. That card was simply a worthless piece of paper.
When I write my will, I know that my wishes will be carried out on my behalf in the event of my death by the trustees, who are obliged by law not to deviate one jot.

How is it that a will in the form of a card, which I have filled in and which states my express wishes—I want my organs, whatever use they might be, to be made available to give life to another person—can be overridden, yet my final will and testament will be adhered to by the law? When one considers the matter in that way, it is logical and sensible that the wishes of a donor, when written down on a piece of paper in the form of an explicit request, should have the same power as any request that I might make in my will.
Therefore, I hope that the Bill will come to fruition. I fear that, today, we may not be successful because of lack of parliamentary time, and I regret that. The issue is of fundamental importance, because I believe that it is my human right to be able to ensure that my wishes are carried out.
Some interesting research has shown that, where a person has made an explicit request, on the whole and mercifully, the family rarely override that wish—but they can. A wider issue is that when someone who has not made an explicit request dies, the family has a right to say, "No, I do not wish this to go ahead", and that happens in about 25 per cent. of cases. We should examine their reasons for doing that and not be too harsh. They often say that, in the trauma of grief, they feel that giving the body up for a donation is somehow extra surgery. Even if it makes no logical sense to think that, because the person is dead, such considerations can have great emotional power over grieving relatives. Sometimes, relatives say, "My relative has suffered enough—don't do any more." We have to bear in mind that fog of emotion and the time has come to try to clarify what people can do and whose wishes should be respected.
I totally endorse the Government's endeavours to publicise the organ donor scheme. I have looked down the list of all their initiatives and can only say that, although we have had years when the Government have worked hard and pumped money into a big publicity campaign, that does not happen every year or with the same energy. Sometimes, people come across their cards haphazardly—for example, I had not realised until today that I should have signed the section of my driving licence that provides for organ donor consent. How many people in the Chamber have signed the consent on their driving licence so that there is no shadow of doubt that that is their wish? It is a brilliant idea and it should be built on and publicised because, nowadays, there is barely a person in the land who does not carry a driving licence.
The Bill is so important that I wish it the very best passage, and if it does not pass all its stages right now, I very much hope that it will be picked up on another day. It means so much to me to know that, in the event of my death, someone, somewhere will benefit. It would also help the relatives to know that the spirit of their loved one, in a sense, continues in service in another being, and has made a better life for them. It eases the pain, the sharpness of death, to know that good is coming out of a tragedy.
I very much hope that we shall carry on in our endeavours to ensure that all our wishes are adhered to and that other people may benefit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon,


South (Mr. Marshall) on introducing the Bill. As we all know, he is a doughty campaigner on several health subjects—indeed, I would say relentless, considering the way in which he has pursued me concerning haemophiliacs. I noticed that he managed to get a well-contrived mention of the problems of haemophiliacs into his speech, which was otherwise about organ transplantation. His campaigning has been praiseworthy, although it is quite intimidating to be on the receiving end of some of his campaigns.
It is noteworthy that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has campaigned so much on health subjects when he is primarily an economist, and speaks also on economic matters. As a fellow economist, I am delighted by that, because it shows clearly that economists, who are often maligned, are also human beings. He will recall that one of the most famous of political economists, a Labour Member, was once called a desiccated calculating machine by another member of the Labour party. I do not wish to be disputatious about this, but it shows the low opinion in which economists are sometimes held. I am glad that my hon. Friend is striving manfully to present the other side of the coin.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, as have others, that the Bill is a replica of the Bill that was introduced by the late Lord Finsberg in 1995, which passed through the House of Lords but did not succeed in the House of Commons. Geoffrey Finsberg was my hon. Friend's neighbour in north London. There must be something about the air in north London that brings about—

Mr. John Marshall: Very healthy air.

Mr. Horam: Or perhaps it is the electorate in north London who bring about this admirable concern for selfless health matters, if I may put it like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South took us on a fascinating tour of Europe. Uncharacteristically for him, given his views on European Union matters, he brought into play the strength of the arrangements in other European countries and said that we were a long way down the list of European countries when it came to the provision of dialysis. That is a fair point.
On a happier note, more people are alive with transplanted kidneys in the United Kingdom than in any European country—15,000. As my hon. Friend would be the first to say to me, given the wonderful performance of successive Conservative Governments, we are now leaders in Europe on economic matters; we are also, clearly, leaders in Europe on transplantation matters, which is the subject of his Bill. I should like to put my hon. Friend's point about our relatively poor performance in renal dialysis in that perspective—we are excellent on transplantation.
I must correct my hon. Friend's point about the percentage of relatives who refuse to allow organs to be removed for donation from people who have died in intensive care. He mentioned the figure of 50 per cent., which was picked up by one of my Conservative colleagues. We have different evidence. In 1989–90, an independent study showed that 30 per cent. of families consulted refused permission; in 1993, a study showed

that relatives refused permission in 26 per cent. of cases. I am not sure where my hon. Friend found the figure of 50 per cent.; it does not appear to coincide with the information that we have. Our information is not specifically related to intensive care units, but concerns all cases where permission has been refused by the relatives.

Mr. John Marshall: The information was contained in one of the speeches in the debate instigated by the late Lord Finsberg.

Mr. Horam: I shall check on that if I may. I am not saying that my hon. Friend is wrong about intensive care units, but there is contradictory evidence about what happens generally when permission has been refused. I shall look into the point raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) gave a characteristically balanced and rational appraisal of the situation and asked a significant question. Why does not the possession of a donor card automatically close the issue? Why is the card not enough to show clearly the wishes of the deceased with no further argument? The possession of a signed donor card satisfies the requirements of the Human Tissue Act 1961, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) proposes to amend, and under which organs may be taken without anyone being consulted. That requirement is fulfilled under existing legislation. However, the Human Tissue Act also requires it to be established that the deceased had not changed his or her mind after signing the card; the only sensible way to check up on that is to consult the family. That is the first reason why relatives have to be consulted.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) suggested, I was consulting my donor card. I was checking on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The donor card states at the bottom:
Let your relatives know your wishes.
In addition to carrying and signing the card, someone must let his relatives know his wishes. In that way, there can be no doubt that the wishes of the deceased remained as they were at the time of his signing the card and he has not resiled from them since.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned that the donor should be of sound mind. We want to ensure that no one who signs a donor card is under a misapprehension about what it involves, as it is a significant thing to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West paid tribute to Lord Finsberg and raised an important point about the family. The relatives of the deceased will have memories and emotions of him or her. My hon. Friend made a telling point. One can imagine the situation where a young man has died in a car accident. His organs could be most usefully used in a transplant, but his relatives would be in shock; they would be particularly traumatised because he was young. It would be horrific if they made a decision and were then overruled so that organs were taken out of the young person against their wishes. If that happened, with all the tabloid publicity associated with such a gruesome incident, it would be a setback for voluntary organ donation, which we all support. We must address that problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South understands the problem and would not want to set back the cause of organ donation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made the key point that, if a person has clearly said that he wishes his body to be used for organ transplantation after his death, permission is almost never refused by his relatives. In practice, under the current arrangements, the voluntary system works almost to maximum efficiency, which is crucial I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley made an interesting point about the shortness and simplicity of the Bill. I agree: if all Bills were as short as this one, the House would be extremely grateful. My hon. Friend spoke of the Royal Titles Act 1876. Disraeli had a thing about shortness and simplicity: his Cabinet consisted of only 12 members, one of whom was the Master of the Horse, Lord Cardigan. So Disraeli clearly had things worked out in a way that we have perhaps gone back on since then.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) made a characteristically forthright speech. I congratulate him on his maiden speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box. As is traditional in these cases, I wish him a long sojourn on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will hone his skills to perfection in the long years ahead of him. As he was substituting for my usual opponent, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), there was no change in the friendly Yorkshire tones in which the problem was aired. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North mentioned Jimmy Boyce, the Member of Parliament for Rotherham until his sad death. He was my pair and I was personally in contact with him literally a few days before he died—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 February.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

DOGS (ELECTRIC SHOCK COLLARS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 18 April.

BREEDING AND SALE OF DOGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 18 April.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Not moved.

LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stephen.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified—

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

WITNESS PROTECTION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [3] January].

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

DISABLED PERSONS AND CARERS (SHORT-TERM BREAKS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 February.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 February.

OBSCENITY BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

POLICE (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL

Ordered,
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Police (Health and Safety) Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

SEXUAL OFFENCES (PROTECTED MATERIAL) BILL

Ordered,
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 17th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), the Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lilley relating to Pensions and to Social Security.—[Mr. Carrington.]

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL

Ordered,
That the proviso in paragraph (2)(ii) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of Standing Committees) shall not apply to the Welsh Development Agency Bill.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Orders of the Day — Telecommunication Masts (Planning Guidance)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to have the opportunity of a debate on the subject of telecommunication masts and planning guidance.
First, let me explain the background to the debate. The issue has been boiling on and off in the local and national media for more than a year. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who is my neighbour, raised the issue on the Adjournment on 1 March last year. There are now four appeals against planning refusal that affect a particular area of our two constituencies. Those appeals prompted me to apply for the debate.
I am grateful for the support of all councillors of all parties on the matter, and of others. It is not a party political matter and should not become so. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk regrets that he cannot be present for the debate, but he wishes to be associated with my remarks, as I was with his.
Back in March last year, my hon. Friend expressed the general fear that telecom masts would sprout up all over the countryside and that even areas of special landscape interest would be affected. The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, my hon. Friend the Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), responded positively and sensitively to the points raised. He focused on the code of best practice that he published shortly afterwards in April, and promised that the code would be closely monitored. He also emphasised the sensible point that the best way forward was for all parties—mobile telecom companies, planning authorities, those locally affected and conservation groups—to maintain a constructive dialogue.
I took up the challenge on behalf of my constituency. I have initiated and attended meetings with councillors and planning officials. Local authorities and others have had to learn a new technical language—including terms such as footprints, coverage and sight lines—in order to understand the key questions. Some authorities have not been as fleet-footed as they might have been. I am pleased, however, that Colchester borough council has eventually engaged the mobile telecom companies in serious discussions as to how best they could help to resolve each other's problems.
I invited all the companies making applications in my area to come and see me. Most came, and I should like to thank Orange, Cellnet and Vodaphone for taking the trouble to keep me informed. After some initial reluctance in some cases, they were all keen to explain their obligations under their licences and anxious to avoid unnecessary controversy.
I warned all the companies of the backlash that they would provoke if they pressed their proposals. Cellnet has wisely withdrawn its proposals, and Orange this morning informed me that it is withdrawing two of the four appeals that are pending. In a fax this morning, Orange states:
You will be aware that we currently have failed to obtain Planning Permission on three locations already, and have lodged Planning Appeals on two of them. Since these appeals were lodged, and as a direct result of your intervention, we have been in discussion with the other three operators".


That is progress, I suppose. At least the operators are looking to use one shared facility, as opposed to a multiplicity of sites, although the situation is still unsatisfactory.
I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister is constrained from commenting on specific planning proposals that may at some future date end up on his desk requiring a decision. However. I make it absolutely clear that I am here today because of the potential threat to the historic landscapes of the Stour valley in my constituency. The skylines in and around Dedham vale, which so inspired John Constable two centuries ago, have remained almost unchanged until today. Not surprisingly, the threat of telecom masts is a highly charged issue in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.
The region is an area of outstanding natural beauty—AONB—and has specific protections. I acknowledge that protection, which has prompted the companies concerned to give up hope of erecting masts within the AONB. However, two companies have written to inform me of applications outside the area that have been refused by the Colchester borough council which they propose to take to appeal. Sites such as Gun hill and Hill Top farm, as their names suggest, are prominent and visible. The structures, which are more than 20 m—or over 60 ft—tall, will be seen for miles around and will dominate the skyline.
Since my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate last year and following our most helpful meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I have sought to reassure my constituents in several ways. First, I have told them that the world is watching the mobile telecom companies. They have special privileges in the planning process, as set out in planning policy guidance note 8. Colchester borough council advises me that the thread running through the guidance is that operators are obliged to provide a certain level of service under the Telecommunications Act 1984. That is a material planning consideration that should prevail over—or at least be given equal weight to—all other considerations. However, the companies have wisely been cautious about asserting those privileges hitherto—seeming to prefer agreement to imposition, as set out in the code of best practice.
Secondly, such impositions in sensitive areas in the face of furious local opposition and national concern about heritage sites would be a setback for the industry. As I have said, in my meetings with the companies concerned, I warned them of the backlash that they would invite from Members of Parliament and conservationists. Thirdly, I continue to set great store by the Government's general commitment to the environment and the countryside. I have taken it on trust from my right hon. and hon. Friends that what is most feared for the Stour valley will not be allowed to happen.
There will now be appeals, and local people may be forgiven for feeling that there is a question mark over the Government's commitment. I am advised by the Colchester borough council planning department that, ultimately, the matter rests in the hands of Ministers. The code of best practice seemed intended to avoid such a confrontational approach by the companies. As far as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other conservationists are concerned, the code will have failed

if it allows companies to lodge appeals over the heads of the local planning authorities. PPG8 seems destined to bias any inspector's report in favour of development.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to address his reply to the general effects of applications for development just outside the boundaries of protected areas such as AONBs. Is the presumption in favour of development inviolate, or does protecting our natural heritage come first? A constituent reiterated that point in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he said:
concern would be much eased if we could be assured that, in the event of appeals against the local planning authority's decision, the Inspector would have both the power and the intention to take into account the environmental impact in each case.
How will the balance be struck? Do the protections afforded to AONBs, national parks and other sensitive areas extend to sites outside the boundaries of such areas if the development in question would adversely affect the landscape? Crucially, in light of the appeals that are now going ahead, is it not time to announce a review of PPG8? Colchester borough council and I have consistently pressed for such action. Could there be any better way of signalling to the operators that their activities will be severely constrained in order to protect the environment if they press ahead with their plans?
In his reply, will my hon. Friend the Minister bear it in mind that technology may rescue us from making those choices sooner than we might think? How long will it be before mobile communications are taken over by satellites instead of terrestrial radio? What is the prospect of cellphone systems with much more local, much smaller, less visually intrusive antennae? The representatives of one company that visited me told me how technology would eventually be able to conceal transceivers in roadside signs, trees and lamp posts. What will happen tomorrow to the huge aerial arrays that are under consideration today? We are told that they will be taken down. But they will be far too useful to their owners for them to allow them to be taken down. Our planning law does not adapt well to the practice of temporary consents.
Christian civilisation has waited nearly 2,000 years for mobile phones. Our precious countryside, which has evolved over thousands of centuries, is changing faster than ever before in what amounts to the twinkling of an eye under the pressures of the modern world. Can we merely say no on this occasion? When we sing:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?",
are we simply referring to a commodity that the British people will be happy to trade in for an extra minute's conversation as they drive up the A12? If we reflect upon it, I think not. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will concur. I am grateful to him for giving up his time to attend the debate, and I look forward to his response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I suddenly thought it was Sunday, for a moment.
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said about the impact of telecommunication masts on the countryside. I was about to say that it is a hobby, but it is a matter of distinct long-term importance that my hon. Friend has


made clear to the House. We understand his argument when we think of the countryside that he is talking about, lives in, works round and is part of his and other constituencies.
I shall start in reverse, as it were, and take up the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed about what happens to telecommunications installations when they become redundant. In an age when technologies develop rapidly, it is something that we must consider. The House will be aware that installations by licensed telecommunications companies are governed by the Telecommunications Act 1984 as well as—I am not putting one above the other—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Both the telecommunications code and the operators' licence obligations require that apparatus must be removed when redundant. Provisions under the planning Act reinforce this requirement. It is also a condition of development permitted by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 that redundant apparatus is removed, and that local planning authorities may attach, if they wish—I hope that some of them are awake to this—similar conditions to planning permissions that they grant.
My hon. Friend talked about satellites. These are fine for transmitting television programmes to millions of viewers but, unfortunately, they are apparently not suitable at present for systems that must provide for an extremely large number of two-way conversations at the same time.
My hon. Friend talked also about possibilities of making masts smaller. That is already happening. I understand that many base stations are already a passable imitation of street lights and antennae serving individual streets. They can be no larger than burglar alarms. The difficulty is that the range and capacity of this smaller apparatus is limited and therefore not suitable for many locations, especially in the open countryside. The choice is often between one large mast and a number of smaller but still fairly obvious ones serving the same area. We can expect, however, that technological refinements will make masts smaller and less obtrusive. We are working in discussions with the operators and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Here and now there is a continuing need sensitively to accommodate masts in the landscape. Our policy is to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems because of the benefits that they can bring. For example, fast, reliable and cost-effective communications can help to attract new business and assist established firms. I understand that they even assist farmers in the countryside.
There are other benefits too, such as safety and security. Accessible communications systems can reduce the need to travel, using the telephone driver information systems. They can enable more effective use to be made of the existing road network. I must emphasise, however, that this must be done while honouring our commitment to protect the environment, and especially our best and most sensitive areas. In short, the Government's land use planning policy seeks to balance the national importance of the telecommunications industry with the need to protect visual amenity.
My hon. Friend mentioned specific developments in his area. As he appreciates, it is not appropriate for me to comment on such matters at this stage, given that appeals may be lodged. Our general policy on the development of telecommunications is set out in planning policy guidance Note 8, which facilitates the growth of new and existing systems, while honouring our commitments to environmental objectives, including well established national policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. The PPG confirms the need, in the context of telecommunications development, to protect the best and most sensitive environments. Those include national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and conservation areas. The need to protect those and other defined areas is recognised under both licensing and planning legislation.
Code system operators' licences may impose their own environmental conditions, which help to protect those areas. Equally, the control of development under the Planning Act recognises the special needs of those areas. The installation of any mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty or other protected area is subject to full planning control.
Elsewhere, the general permitted development order allows code system operators to carry out various types of development, including the erection of masts of up to 15 m high, without the need to apply for planning permission. That freedom was reviewed in 1992, when we decided that the 15 m limit struck the right balance. Masts over the 15 m limit require a full planning application, but that does not mean that local planning authorities are powerless to prevent masts under 15 m in unsuitable locations. A code system operator wishing to erect a mast of up to 15 m in height must apply to the local planning authority for its determination as to whether it wishes to approve details of the mast siting and appearance, and the authority can refuse approval to one or both of those aspects if it considers that it is justified. As with applications made for other kinds of development, a code system operator has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment when the authorisation sought from a local planning authority is not forthcoming.
Decisions taken by local planning authorities on planning applications, and by the Secretary of State on appeals, must be made in accordance with the local authority's development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National planning policies, too, may be a governing factor when such decisions are made. In the context of telecommunications applications, that means not only the policies set out in PPG8 but relevant policies in other guidance notes. For instance, PPG8 cites green-belt policies—PPG2; countryside policies—PPG7; and policies for nature conservation—now PPG9—as particularly relevant.
To help keep the number of masts to a minimum, our planning policy guidance encourages mast-sharing, and licences issued by the Department of Trade and Industry require operators to consider that. There are, however, technical constraints. A choice must sometimes be made between one larger and more conspicuous mast shared by several operators and more than one smaller, less conspicuous masts for a number of individual operators.
Local authority development plans apply national landscape conservation policies on a site-specific basis and may well formulate policies for locally defined landscape areas. Increasingly, plans contain policies and


proposals specifically for telecommunications development. PPG8 specifically advises that those should be formulated having regard to the need to protect the best and most sensitive environments. While such established planning policies that have been the subject of public consultation form the basis for decision-making, other material considerations will come into play on a case-by-case basis. Visual amenity is one such consideration and the visibility of a mast from a designated area, such as an area of outstanding natural beauty, can be a material consideration in relation to both prior approval determinations and full planning applications.
I have sought briefly to explain the land-use policy framework, which offers a firm basis for decisions on proposals for telecommunications masts. Planning authorities have a substantial degree of control over that type of development through the prior approval procedure and the need for a full planning application to be submitted in sensitive areas.
My hon. Friend mentioned the code of best practice that my Department published last year. To encourage better working of the prior approval procedure, we set up a working group consisting of representatives of local planning authorities, the code system operators, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office The code has been generally welcomed as setting out a

helpful information base and providing a positive framework for code operators and local planning authorities to work together over the siting of masts. It encourages co-operation to make it easier for prior approval applications to be dealt with effectively within the 28-day period allowed. The code refers to designated areas and locations of environmental sensitivity.
When the code was launched, we undertook to reconvene the working group to review its operation. With the help of the code operators and local planning authorities, the group is monitoring the working of the code. My Department has undertaken a preliminary survey of the code's effectiveness. One of the survey's findings was that 11 per cent. of the applications for prior approval reported during the survey period were refused by the local authorities.
All in all, that demonstrates the point that I made early on that local authorities have substantial control over such mast development, particularly in and around sensitive areas. I welcome the continuing dialogue within the group, which is considering the suggestions for amending and amplifying the code in the light of the practical experience of its operation. We must consider my hon. Friend's case as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock.